Strengthened Shareholders' Rights, Increased Risk: The Paradox of Rising Non-Performing Loans in Ugandan Commercial Banks

Strengthened Shareholders' Rights, Increased... | F1000Research "use strict";function _typeof(t){return(_typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(t){return typeof t}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof t})(t)}!function(){var t=function(){var t,e,o=[],n=window,r=n;for(;r;){try{if(r.frames.__tcfapiLocator){t=r;break}}catch(t){}if(r===n.top)break;r=r.parent}t||(!function t(){var e=n.document,o=!!n.frames.__tcfapiLocator;if(!o)if(e.body){var r=e.createElement("iframe");r.style.cssText="display:none",r.name="__tcfapiLocator",e.body.appendChild(r)}else setTimeout(t,5);return!o}(),n.__tcfapi=function(){for(var t=arguments.length,n=new Array(t),r=0;r 3&&2===parseInt(n[1],10)&&"boolean"==typeof n[3]&&(e=n[3],"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]("set",!0)):"ping"===n[0]?"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]({gdprApplies:e,cmpLoaded:!1,cmpStatus:"stub"}):o.push(n)},n.addEventListener("message",(function(t){var e="string"==typeof t.data,o={};if(e)try{o=JSON.parse(t.data)}catch(t){}else o=t.data;var n="object"===_typeof(o)&&null!==o?o.__tcfapiCall:null;n&&window.__tcfapi(n.command,n.version,(function(o,r){var a={__tcfapiReturn:{returnValue:o,success:r,callId:n.callId}};t&&t.source&&t.source.postMessage&&t.source.postMessage(e?JSON.stringify(a):a,"*")}),n.parameter)}),!1))};"undefined"!=typeof module?module.exports=t:t()}(); dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://f1000research.com/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'research'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); (function(h,o,t,j,a,r){ h.hj=h.hj||function(){(h.hj.q=h.hj.q||[]).push(arguments)}; h._hjSettings={hjid:2318163,hjsv:6}; a=o.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]; r=o.createElement('script');r.async=1; r.src=t+h._hjSettings.hjid+j+h._hjSettings.hjsv; a.appendChild(r); })(window,document,'https://static.hotjar.com/c/hotjar-','.js?sv='); search file_upload Submit your research search menu close search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines Open Data and Accessible Source Materials Guidelines (HSS) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines (PSE) Prepublication Checks Production Process Posters and Slides Guidelines Document Guidelines Article Processing Charges Peer Review Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers Our Advisors Policies Glossary FAQs For Developers Newsroom Contact My Research Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1264" }, "headline": "Strengthened Shareholders' Rights, Increased Risk: The Paradox of Rising Non-Performing Loans in Ugandan...", "datePublished": "2025-11-17T15:14:47", "dateModified": "2025-11-17T15:14:47", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Muniru Sewanyina" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "David Nyambane" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Michael Manyange" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Sunday Arthur" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "F1000Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 480, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 150 }, "description": " Background The surge in non-performing loans (NPLs) critically threatens the stability of commercial banks, especially in developing economies. Corporate governance is widely seen as a key mitigating factor. However, the specific mechanisms and causal pathways through which governance attributes such as shareholders’ rights influence NPL levels remain inadequately understood, particularly within the unique institutional context of Sub-Saharan Africa. Methods This investigation employed a cross-sectional, mixed-methods design focusing on commercial banks in Western Uganda. Quantitative data were collected from 195 bank employees and board members using structured questionnaires, with participants selected via stratified, purposive, and simple random sampling techniques. This data was analyzed with SPSS version 28, applying descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation, and simple linear regression. Concurrently, qualitative data were gathered through semi-structured interviews with six senior bank officials and analyzed thematically using NVivo software to provide contextual depth and nuance. Results The quantitative analysis revealed a statistically significant, strong positive relationship between board accountability and the reduction of NPLs (r = .779, p < .05). In contrast, a significant positive relationship was also found between shareholders’ rights and the perceived level of NPLs (β = .718, p < .05), suggesting a complex and potentially counterproductive role. Qualitative findings triangulated these results, identifying two key mechanisms: the reduction of improper board interference in loan approval processes and proactive board engagement in NPL resolution. Conclusions The study concludes that robust shareholders’ right is a critical determinant for mitigating NPLs, whereas the effect of shareholders’ rights is ambiguous and potentially negative. A well-functioning, accountable board that aligns management actions with long-term bank stability is paramount. The findings underscore the necessity of implementing holistic governance reforms that balance empowered shareholders with strong ethical safeguards to ensure prudent credit risk management. " } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1264", "name": "Strengthened Shareholders' Rights, Increased Risk: The Paradox of..." } } ] } Home Browse Strengthened Shareholders' Rights, Increased Risk: The Paradox of... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Sewanyina M, Nyambane D, Manyange M and Arthur S. Strengthened Shareholders' Rights, Increased Risk: The Paradox of Rising Non-Performing Loans in Ugandan Commercial Banks [version 1; peer review: 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :1264 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.171943.1 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Research Article Strengthened Shareholders' Rights, Increased Risk: The Paradox of Rising Non-Performing Loans in Ugandan Commercial Banks [version 1; peer review: 2 not approved] Muniru Sewanyina https://orcid.org/0009-0004-6569-2367 1 , David Nyambane https://orcid.org/0009-0007-6748-1442 2 , Michael Manyange 3 , Sunday Arthur 4 Muniru Sewanyina https://orcid.org/0009-0004-6569-2367 1 , David Nyambane https://orcid.org/0009-0007-6748-1442 2 , Michael Manyange 3 , Sunday Arthur 4 PUBLISHED 17 Nov 2025 Author details Author details 1 Department of Business Administration, Kampala International University - Western Campus, Bushenyi, Western Region, Uganda 2 Department of Business Administration, Kampala International University - Western Campus, Bushenyi, Western Region, Uganda 3 Department of Business Administration, Kampala International University - Western Campus, Bushenyi, Western Region, Uganda 4 Department of Business Administration, Kampala International University - Western Campus, Bushenyi, Western Region, Uganda Muniru Sewanyina Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Software, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing David Nyambane Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Project Administration, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Michael Manyange Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Investigation, Project Administration, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Sunday Arthur Roles: Conceptualization, Project Administration, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS Abstract Background The surge in non-performing loans (NPLs) critically threatens the stability of commercial banks, especially in developing economies. Corporate governance is widely seen as a key mitigating factor. However, the specific mechanisms and causal pathways through which governance attributes such as shareholders’ rights influence NPL levels remain inadequately understood, particularly within the unique institutional context of Sub-Saharan Africa. Methods This investigation employed a cross-sectional, mixed-methods design focusing on commercial banks in Western Uganda. Quantitative data were collected from 195 bank employees and board members using structured questionnaires, with participants selected via stratified, purposive, and simple random sampling techniques. This data was analyzed with SPSS version 28, applying descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation, and simple linear regression. Concurrently, qualitative data were gathered through semi-structured interviews with six senior bank officials and analyzed thematically using NVivo software to provide contextual depth and nuance. Results The quantitative analysis revealed a statistically significant, strong positive relationship between board accountability and the reduction of NPLs (r = .779, p < .05). In contrast, a significant positive relationship was also found between shareholders’ rights and the perceived level of NPLs (β = .718, p < .05), suggesting a complex and potentially counterproductive role. Qualitative findings triangulated these results, identifying two key mechanisms: the reduction of improper board interference in loan approval processes and proactive board engagement in NPL resolution. Conclusions The study concludes that robust shareholders’ right is a critical determinant for mitigating NPLs, whereas the effect of shareholders’ rights is ambiguous and potentially negative. A well-functioning, accountable board that aligns management actions with long-term bank stability is paramount. The findings underscore the necessity of implementing holistic governance reforms that balance empowered shareholders with strong ethical safeguards to ensure prudent credit risk management. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords Shareholders' Rights, Non-Performing Loans (NPLs), Corporate Governance, Stakeholder Theory, Commercial Banks, Uganda, Credit Risk Management Corresponding Author(s) Muniru Sewanyina ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding author: Muniru Sewanyina Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Copyright: © 2025 Sewanyina M et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: Sewanyina M, Nyambane D, Manyange M and Arthur S. Strengthened Shareholders' Rights, Increased Risk: The Paradox of Rising Non-Performing Loans in Ugandan Commercial Banks [version 1; peer review: 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :1264 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.171943.1 ) First published: 17 Nov 2025, 14 :1264 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.171943.1 ) Latest published: 17 Nov 2025, 14 :1264 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.171943.1 ) 1. Introduction The stability of the banking sector is a cornerstone of economic development, yet it remains perpetually threatened by the proliferation of non-performing loans (NPLs). High levels of NPLs erode bank capital, constrain credit availability, and can precipitate systemic financial crises, a concern particularly acute in developing economies. In Sub-Saharan Africa, the fragility of financial institutions has often been linked to deficiencies in corporate governance frameworks, where the oversight of credit risk management fails to meet robust standards. The Ugandan banking sector exemplifies this challenge, having witnessed the closure of several commercial banks historically due to insolvency rooted in poor asset quality, underscoring the persistent need for effective governance solutions to mitigate credit risk. Corporate governance, particularly the role of the board of directors, is central to navigating the complex principal-agent relationships inherent in banking. While Agency Theory has long illuminated the risk of managerial actions diverging from shareholder interests, the application of Stakeholder Theory offers a more holistic lens for understanding bank governance. This theory posits that a bank’s long-term viability depends on effectively balancing the interests of all constituents, including shareholders, depositors, regulators, and borrowers. Recent empirical studies affirm that governance failures, such as weak board oversight and a lack of transparency, are significant precursors to risky lending and subsequent NPL accumulation (e.g., García-Meca & Sánchez-Ballesta, 2024 ; Tarchouna et al., 2022 ). Conversely, governance mechanisms that promote accountability and strategic oversight are increasingly recognized as critical levers for safeguarding asset quality and ensuring financial resilience. However, a critical gap persists in understanding the specific causal pathways through which distinct governance mechanisms, such as board accountability and shareholders’ rights, influence NPLs within unique institutional contexts. Existing research, often conducted in developed markets or focusing on broad governance metrics, provides limited insight into the nuanced interactions within emerging economies like Uganda, where informal networks and institutional weaknesses may reshape governance outcomes ( Adegboye et al., 2023 ; Tumwine & Kyeyune, 2022 ). This study, therefore, seeks to fill this void by investigating the precise mechanisms linking corporate governance to NPL reduction in Ugandan commercial banks. Focusing on the under-researched context of Western Uganda, this research employs a mixed-methods approach to dissect the relationship between board accountability, shareholders’ rights, and perceived NPLs, aiming to contribute a contextually nuanced model for mitigating credit risk through enhanced governance. 2. Theoretical framework and empirical literature 2.1 Theoretical review: Stakeholder theory as an analytical lens This study is anchored in Stakeholder Theory, which provides a robust framework for understanding the complex interplay of interests within a banking corporation. Initially articulated by R. Edward Freeman (1984) , the theory fundamentally challenges the shareholder-primacy model by positing that a firm’s long-term success is dependent upon its ability to manage the interests of all entities that can affect or are affected by its objectives ( Freeman, Wicks, & Parmar, 2004 ). This definition encompasses a broad spectrum of groups, including shareholders, employees, customers, regulators, and the broader community. A central debate within the theory concerns the prioritization of these competing interests. While some scholars argue against granting inherent primacy to any single group, such as shareholders ( Sundaram & Inkpen, 2004 ), others note the practical difficulty in managing these complex trade-offs ( Budi, 2021 ). This perspective stands in contrast to Stewardship Theory, which, despite also challenging the self-interest assumption of Agency Theory, ultimately focuses on managers aligning with shareholder wealth maximization ( Al-Nasser Mohammed & Muhammed, 2017 ). Stakeholder Theory’s comprehensiveness makes it particularly salient for banking governance, as financial institutions inherently operate as repositories of public trust with obligations to a wide array of constituents. The theory’s relevance is powerfully demonstrated in the context of credit risk and Non-Performing Loans (NPLs). Contemporary scholarship argues that banks which prioritize short-term shareholder returns over the long-term interests of other stakeholders such as depositors seeking safety and regulators demanding stability are more prone to the risky lending practices that precipitate high NPLs ( Freeman et al., 2021 ). Conversely, a stakeholder-oriented approach fosters prudent lending, as it balances the pursuit of profit with the imperative of risk management, thereby enhancing long-term stability. Recent empirical work has significantly expanded this core premise by integrating critical dimensions like regulatory compliance, reputational risk, and ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) factors. Claessens and Kodres (2022) demonstrated that weak, non-inclusive governance often leads to non-adherence to lending standards and regulatory requirements, resulting in the underreporting of NPLs and inadequate provisioning. Furthermore, governance failures that lead to high NPLs inflict severe reputational damage, eroding stakeholder trust and impairing a bank’s ability to attract deposits, as evidenced during the European debt crisis ( DeYoung et al., 2023 ). Simultaneously, robust ESG practices have been empirically correlated with lower NPL levels, suggesting that frameworks promoting ethical behavior and a long-term perspective inherently curb risky lending ( García-Meca & Sánchez-Ballesta, 2024 ). In summary, Stakeholder Theory provides a vital lens for understanding NPLs, positing that a holistic governance model which balances diverse interests, ensures regulatory compliance, manages reputational capital, and embeds ESG principles is a strategic imperative for asset quality and financial resilience. 2.2 Empirical literature: Shareholders’ rights and non-performing loans The empirical landscape exploring the nexus between shareholders’ rights and NPLs reveals significant, yet context-dependent, relationships. Recent studies underscore that while shareholder activism can be a potent force for credit risk oversight, its efficacy is heavily mediated by institutional, political, and informal factors. In emerging markets, the evidence is particularly nuanced. Agyemang and McMenamin (2023) , in a longitudinal study of Ghanaian banks, found that active shareholder participation in governance committees led to a 22% reduction in NPLs, attributing this to enhanced scrutiny of loan approval processes. However, the authors acknowledge a critical limitation: their focus on formal governance channels may overlook the potent influence of informal networks, a factor highly relevant in relationship-based banking cultures like Uganda’s, where family-owned institutions dominate a significant portion of the market ( Bank of Uganda, 2023 ). The mechanism of transparency is another key focus. Rahman and Saeed (2022) demonstrated that shareholder-initiated disclosure requirements enabled banks to identify problem loans 37 days sooner, facilitating timely intervention. Their robust methodology, employing propensity score matching, confirms the value of information access. Yet, this finding presupposes a shareholder base capable of processing complex credit risk data, a challenge in contexts with high information asymmetry and limited financial literacy among minority investors. Cross-country analyses further contextualize this relationship. Singh and Jain (2023) employed a hierarchical linear model across 38 jurisdictions, revealing a stark disparity: shareholder rights explained 39% of NPL variation in OECD countries but only 17% in developing markets. This highlights the paramount importance of legal enforcement capabilities, suggesting that strong de jure rights are insufficient without de facto institutional support. The African context introduces additional layers of complexity. Adegboye et al. (2023) , in their analysis of South African banks, used instrumental variable regression to demonstrate that political connections diluted shareholder influence on credit risk management by 32 percentage points. While insightful, this focus on formal political ties may overlook subtler, yet equally powerful, informal influences in Uganda, such as ethnic or clan-based networks, which preliminary data suggest significantly impact commercial lending decisions. Finally, policy evaluations within Uganda itself point to severe implementation challenges. Tumwine and Kyeyune’s (2022) difference-in-differences analysis of the 2018 governance reforms showed a meager 1.2 percentage point reduction in NPLs following the enhancement of shareholder rights. Follow-up interviews with Ugandan bank directors (2023) identified three core impediments: lack of timely data access for minority shareholders, a skills deficit among shareholder representatives, and weak enforcement of governance rules. This critical gap in the literature the lack of practical solutions to these documented implementation barriers represents a significant scholarly and policy void. 2.3 Identification of the research gap and hypothesis The synthesized literature reveals a critical gap. While empirical studies confirm a theoretical relationship between shareholders’ rights and NPLs, they consistently highlight the failure of formal mechanisms in the face of informal networks, institutional weaknesses, and implementation deficits, particularly in the Ugandan context. Existing research has ably diagnosed these problems but has not sufficiently proposed or tested actionable frameworks to overcome them. This study directly addresses this gap by not only quantifying the relationship but also, through its mixed-methods design, exploring the qualitative “how” and “why” behind the effectiveness—or ineffectiveness of shareholders’ rights in Western Uganda’s unique banking environment. Therefore, to rigorously test the quantifiable dimension of this relationship, the following null hypothesis is formulated: H0 1 : There is no statistically significant relationship between shareholders’ rights and the perceived level of Non-Performing Loans in commercial banks in Western Uganda. 3. Methods This study employed a mixed-methods approach to investigate the relationship between corporate governance mechanisms, including shareholders’ rights, and the perceived level of non-performing loans (NPLs) in commercial banks in Western Uganda. A cross-sectional and correlational research design was utilized. Quantitative data were collected via structured questionnaires from a sample of 195 bank employees and board members, selected through a combination of stratified, purposive, and simple random sampling techniques from a target population of 550, achieving an 84.1% response rate. The survey instrument included validated scales to measure the key constructs of shareholders’ rights and perceived NPL levels. The quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS version 24.0. The analysis proceeded in three stages: descriptive statistics to summarize the data, Pearson correlation to examine bivariate relationships, and simple linear regression to test the study’s hypotheses. A 5% significance level was adopted for all tests. To provide depth and context to the statistical findings, qualitative data were concurrently gathered through semi-structured interviews with six purposively selected senior bank officials. The interview transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis with the support of NVivo software, allowing for the identification of emergent themes and causal pathways explaining the quantitative results. 4. Results 4.1 Descriptive statistics 4.1.1 Shareholders’ rights in commercial banks Respondents can find useful information about the rights and policies of shareholders in their individual banks in Table 1 . It is noteworthy that the results of the most recent vote at shareholder meetings, which had a considerable mean score of 4.43 and a standard deviation of 0.496, were released in less than two days. This suggests that there is broad consensus among respondents about how quickly such information should be disclosed. Additionally, with a mean of 4.33 and a standard deviation of 0.779, the unconstrained rule of “one-share, one-vote” for common or ordinary equity shares was generally endorsed. This reflects the belief that voting procedures are transparent and equitable. Table 1. Descriptive statistics on shareholders’ rights. Statements N Min Max Mean Std. deviation Vote results for the last shareholder meeting are disclosed within 14 calendar days 189 4 5 4.43 .496 All common or ordinary equity shares have one-share, one-vote, with no restrictions 189 2 5 4.33 .779 There is equal treatment of all shareholders of the bank 189 2 5 4.29 .827 Shareholders have received dividends as per the bank policy 189 2 5 4.19 .854 The company provides confidential voting with no or with reasonable exceptions 189 3 5 4.19 .665 Shareholders participate in the approval of major transactions 189 3 5 4.10 .752 Shareholders have a right to convene an EGM with 10% or less of the shares requesting one 189 3 5 4.10 .685 Shareowners have a right to act in concert through written communication 189 2 5 4.05 .846 The shareholders are given right to request additional information and clarity from the bank 189 1 5 3.95 1.002 Shareholders are given right to nominate directors 189 2 5 3.90 1.068 Overall Mean 189 4.15 .797 According to the data, which showed a high mean of 4.29 and 0.827, participants also said they think all stockholders are treated equitably. This shows a belief that all shareholders should be treated fairly. Additionally, the data demonstrated that bank policies do provide dividends to shareholders; the average was 4.19, which was below the standard deviation of 0.854, which indicates that payments are very reliable. Additionally, they confirmed the use of confidential voting procedures, which demonstrated that banks typically exercise this prerogative. The mean and standard deviation difference was 4.19 for all but four of these cases. With a mean of 4.10 and a low standard deviation of 0.752, it was also observed that shareholders actively participated in authorizing important transactions. A high mean of 4.10 and a low standard deviation of 0.785 imply that shareholders have the right to convene an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) if 10% or more of their shares seek one. This suggests a considerable awareness of the degree to which shareholders may influence governance procedures. With a mean of 4.05 and a standard deviation of 0.846, the capacity of shareholders to work together via written communication demonstrates their collective strength. With a mean score of 3.95 and a standard deviation of 1.002, the respondents also indicated that shareholders can ask the bank for further details and clarification. Though significantly higher criteria show diversity in perceptions, the generality is reflected. A mean of 3.90 and 1.068 standard deviation showed that shareholders recognized the power to nominate directors; however, larger values suggest less consistent replies. But the outcomes weren’t consistent. The standard deviation was 0.797, and the mean was 4.15, indicating that respondents tended to approve the assertions about shareholder rights. The findings show that banks have robust shareholder rights policies that exhibit openness, equity, and active participation. Both means and mean (SD) are used in this detailed, balanced analysis of the data to represent respondents’ agreement and differences in opinion. 4.1.2 Perceived view of Non-performing Loans (NPLs), According to Table 2 above, banks have put in place excellent procedures for managing Perceived view of Non-performing Loans (NPLs), as shown by the high mean scores for the majority of the criteria (overall mean=3.97±0.909). As a reflection of their established risk management infrastructures, institutions show a particular strength in maintaining specialist NPL units (4.14±0.891) and explicit default handling rules (4.10±0.752). Long restructuring procedures, the item with the highest score (4.19±0.796), however, inconsistently show a major operational bottleneck, indicating that banks may have the right structures in place but inefficient resolution methods. These fundamental metrics’ comparatively low standard deviations show that the institutions examined apply them consistently. Table 2. Descriptive statistics on perceived view of non-performing loans. Statements N Min. Max. Mean Std. deviation Loan restructuring procedures take too long to complete 189 2 5 4.19 .796 The bank uses specialized internal units to manage bad loans. 189 2 5 4.14 .891 The bank has clear guidelines for handling defaulted loans 189 2 5 4.10 .752 NPL resolution methods are transparent to clients 189 2 5 3.95 .846 Loan restructuring procedures take too long to complete 189 2 5 3.95 .846 Legal system delays hinder loan recovery efforts 189 3 5 3.95 .577 The bank explores multiple avenues for loan recovery. 189 1 5 3.90 1.112 Clients are given flexible repayment options for NPLs 189 2 5 3.86 .943 Most loans require valuable collateral for approval 189 1 5 3.81 1.142 Collateral valuation is conducted fairly and transparently 189 1 5 3.81 1.183 Overall 189 3.97 0.909 Although banks continue to offer flexible repayment choices (3.86±0.943) and transparent NPL resolution mechanisms (3.95±0.846), there is still need for improvement in a number of client-centric areas. Collateral valuation procedures (3.81±1.183) and the investigation of several recovery paths (3.90±1.112) show more variability, indicating uneven use across instances or institutions. Although there is little variance, external problems such as legal system delays (3.95±0.577) stand out as a significant restraint, suggesting that this is a sector-wide problem rather than an institution-specific one. These results show a discrepancy between internal NPL management systems and how they are actually implemented, especially when it comes to elements that call for client involvement. Simplifying restructuring and enhancing uniformity in client-facing resolution procedures are the two main opportunities the data offers banks. Although the majority of banks appear to cluster around comparable performance levels, the variance in certain regions (especially those with SDs >1.0) shows the possibility of cross-institutional learning, according to the 0.909 overall standard deviation. These findings emphasize to regulators the necessity of removing systemic obstacles and promoting the exchange of best practices in recovery alternatives and collateral value. The results highlight how crucial it is for bank management to combine effective execution and client-centric strategies with robust NPL frameworks in order to maximize loan recovery results. 4.2 Simple regression results Model summary: The Model Summary in Table 3 indicates a strong and meaningful relationship between shareholders’ rights (SR) and the perceived level of non-performing loans (NP). The multiple correlation coefficient (R) of 0.718 signifies a strong positive linear relationship. Crucially, the R Square value of 0.516 reveals that approximately 51.6% of the variance in non-performing loans is explained by shareholders’ rights alone. This establishes the variable’s substantial predictive power within the model and provides initial evidence against the null hypothesis that no such relationship exists. Table 3. Model summary. Model R R square Adjusted R square Std. error of the estimate 1 .718 a .516 .514 .36773 a Predictors: (Constant), SR. ANOVA: The ANOVA in Table 4 , formally tests the global null hypothesis that the regression model does not explain a significant portion of the variance in non-performing loans. The results show a highly significant F-statistic of 199.463 with a p-value of .000. Since this p-value is far below the standard alpha level of 0.05, we decisively reject the null hypothesis. This confirms that the regression model, with shareholders’ rights as a predictor, is statistically significant and provides a better fit to the data than an intercept-only model. Table 4. ANOVA a . Model Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig. 1 Regression 26.973 1 26.973 199.463 .000 b Residual 25.287 187 .135 Total 52.260 188 a Dependent Variable: NP. b Predictors: (Constant), SR. Coefficients: The Coefficients in Table 5 , tests the specific null hypothesis that the slope of the regression line for shareholders’ rights is zero (i.e., SR has no effect on NP). The analysis reveals an unstandardized coefficient (B) of 0.880 for SR, which is highly statistically significant (p = .000). Therefore, we reject this null hypothesis and conclude that there is a significant positive relationship. Specifically, for every one-unit increase in shareholders’ rights, the perceived level of non-performing loans increases by 0.880 units. This positive relationship is counterintuitive, suggesting that stronger shareholder rights in this context are associated with poorer loan performance, a finding that requires further qualitative investigation to understand the underlying causal mechanism. Table 5. Coefficients a . Model Unstandardized coefficients Standardized coefficients t Sig. B Std. error Beta 1 (Constant) .314 .260 1.206 .229 SR .880 .062 .718 14.123 .000 a Dependent Variable: NP. 4.3 The perceived understanding of shareholders’ rights and perceived view of non-performing loans of commercial banks This section presents the interviewees’ perceived understanding of shareholders’ rights and Perceived view of Non-performing Loans of commercial banks. To obtain a clearer picture, the interviewees were asked to answer each of following questions (1 . In your opinion, do you think shareholders of your bank are given a chance to give suggestions on how to handle Perceived view of Non-performing Loans 2. To what extent has the shareholders influenced the issue of Perceived view of Non-performing Loans in your bank 3. How to solve Perceived view of Non-performing Loans through data-driven digital experiences?) and the themes and sub themes generated were presented in the Figure 1 below Figure 1. Reality radial diagram on shareholders’ rights and perceived view of non-performing loans. Based on the qualitative findings in Figure 1 , the study reveals that shareholder involvement in NPL management is substantial and multifaceted, yet presents a complex balance between influence and implementation. A board representative highlighted the direct impact of such engagement, stating, “During our last AGM, shareholders representing 42% of equity pushed for stricter NPL resolution timelines, which we’ve now incorporated into our credit policy,” underscoring how shareholder pressure can drive tangible policy revisions and process improvements, such as reducing recovery times from 210 to 90 days in one notable case. The research identified key mechanisms including AGM participation, digital platforms, and committee representation through which this influence is exerted, particularly in areas like debt recovery and executive compensation. However, this active involvement is a double-edged sword; while it enhances transparency and accountability, it also creates operational challenges. A Compliance Officer warned of potential risks, noting that “Activist shareholders sometimes push for overly aggressive write-offs that could weaken our capital position,” and a Finance Director revealed an implementation gap, stating, “The study receive hundreds of shareholder suggestions quarterly through our portal, but only about 15% are actionable - many conflict with regulatory requirements.” The study concludes that the most sustainable NPL improvements are achieved by institutions that successfully formalize robust communication channels to harness shareholder input while strategically preserving management discretion to ensure actions align with long-term prudential standards. 5. Discussion The findings from the quantitative analysis, which revealed a statistically significant positive relationship between shareholders’ rights and the perceived level of non-performing loans (NPLs), present a counterintuitive puzzle that is, however, illuminated by the contextual insights of Stakeholder Theory and empirical evidence from similar markets. While Agyemang and McMenamin (2023) and Rahman and Saeed (2022) found that strong shareholder rights can enhance oversight and reduce NPLs through transparency, our results suggest that in the specific context of Western Uganda, the form and application of these rights may be the critical factor. The positive relationship aligns with the warnings of Freeman et al. (2021) that a narrow focus on a single stakeholder group in this case, shareholders potentially demanding short-term returns can precipitate the very risky lending that leads to higher NPLs. This is further exacerbated by the institutional weaknesses highlighted by Singh and Jain (2023) , where strong de jure rights without corresponding de facto enforcement capabilities can lead to governance distortions rather than improvements. The significant relationship, therefore, likely does not reflect effective oversight but rather the potential for shareholder influence to be channeled towards myopic goals, undermining the balanced, long-term perspective that Stakeholder Theory advocates for financial stability ( García-Meca & Sánchez-Ballesta, 2024 ). The qualitative data and the empirical literature on Uganda provide a compelling explanation for this paradoxical finding. The potent influence of informal networks, as alluded to in the Ugandan context ( Bank of Uganda, 2023 ) and evidenced in the work of Adegboye et al. (2023) on political connections, suggests that formal shareholders’ rights can be co-opted. In this environment, empowered shareholders may use their rights not for prudent oversight but to exert influence for preferential lending to connected parties, directly leading to the NPLs measured in this study. This interpretation is strongly supported by the work of Tumwine and Kyeyune (2022) , whose policy evaluation found minimal impact from governance reforms in Uganda, pointing to the very implementation deficits lack of skilled shareholder representatives, poor data access, and weak enforcement that our study uncovers. Consequently, the findings do not negate Stakeholder Theory but rather confirm one of its central challenges: managing complex trade-offs ( Budi, 2021 ). Without the complementary governance pillars of regulatory compliance ( Claessens & Kodres, 2022 ), reputational risk management ( DeYoung et al., 2023 ), and a genuine commitment to a multi-stakeholder approach, the isolated strengthening of shareholders’ rights can perversely lead to worse asset quality, as powerful interests are legitimized rather than checked. 6. Conclusion In conclusion, this study demonstrates that the relationship between shareholders’ rights and non-performing loans (NPLs) in Western Uganda is not a straightforward governance panacea but a complex phenomenon shaped by the local institutional context. The findings suggest that in an environment characterized by potent informal networks and weak enforcement mechanisms, the exercise of shareholder rights may paradoxically exacerbate NPLs by facilitating myopic influence over lending decisions for connected parties, rather than fostering the prudent, long-term oversight envisioned by Stakeholder Theory. Therefore, the key to mitigating credit risk lies not merely in strengthening shareholder rights de jure , but in implementing complementary reforms that build stakeholder capacity, ensure regulatory compliance, and embed ethical, multi-stakeholder principles into the fabric of corporate governance to align all interests towards sustainable bank stability. 7. Recommendation 7.1 For commercial banks and boards of directors Commercial banks must proactively refine their governance structures to ensure that enhanced shareholders’ rights serve as a mechanism for broad oversight rather than a conduit for detrimental influence. It is recommended that banks implement and rigorously enforce clear, transparent policies that explicitly ring-fence the loan approval process from any form of undue interference, including from influential shareholders. This can be achieved by empowering independent credit risk committees with final authority over lending decisions. Concurrently, banks should bridge the identified capacity gap by instituting mandatory financial and governance literacy programs for shareholder representatives, particularly for minority holders, and by providing timely, accessible, and intelligible disclosures on loan portfolio performance to foster informed and responsible oversight. 7.2 For regulatory bodies (Bank of Uganda) Regulatory authorities must move beyond the promulgation of governance codes to ensuring their effective implementation and contextual relevance. We recommend that the Bank of Uganda strengthens its supervisory framework to rigorously enforce existing regulations, conducting enhanced fit-and-proper assessments that evaluate significant shareholders for potential conflicts of interest, not just financial soundness. Furthermore, regulators should champion a holistic stakeholder model by issuing guidance that incentivizes banks to formally balance shareholder interests with the stability demands of depositors and the broader financial system. This involves explicitly integrating reputational risk management and ESG-based lending criteria into prudential standards, thereby aligning day-to-day operations with the long-term stability goals that benefit all stakeholders. 7.3 For future research To build upon these findings, future research should pursue methodologies that can unravel the complex causal pathways and contextual factors at play. We recommend longitudinal studies that track the evolution of NPLs in response to specific governance reforms over time, allowing for a clearer establishment of causality. Complementing this, in-depth qualitative case studies are essential to meticulously document and deconstruct the operation of informal influence networks—such as those based on clan, ethnic, or political ties—and their precise impact on credit decisions. Finally, subsequent quantitative studies should develop more integrated models that incorporate key moderating variables like the strength of informal institutions and board expertise to predict the specific conditions under which shareholders’ rights lead to improved or deteriorated asset quality. 8. The theoretical implications This study carries significant theoretical implications by challenging the orthodox assumption that strengthening shareholders’ rights universally leads to improved governance and financial outcomes. The finding of a positive relationship between shareholders’ rights and Non-Performing Loans (NPLs) in the Ugandan context necessitates a critical refinement of Stakeholder Theory’s application in banking. It demonstrates that in institutional environments characterized by weak enforcement and potent informal networks, empowering shareholders in isolation can paradoxically undermine the theory’s core principle of balancing diverse interests. The results suggest that Stakeholder Theory must be contextually qualified to account for situations where certain stakeholder groups, including shareholders, may prioritize parochial interests that conflict with the long-term health of the firm and the broader financial system. Consequently, the study implies that the theory’s predictive power is enhanced when it explicitly incorporates the moderating role of a country’s institutional fabric and the potential for formal governance mechanisms to be subverted by informal social and political forces the study’s contribution to knowledge. This study makes a distinct contribution to knowledge by providing empirical evidence that the relationship between corporate governance mechanisms and bank stability is not universal but is critically mediated by a country’s specific institutional and social fabric. It identifies and documents the paradoxical finding that, within the context of Western Uganda’s commercial banks, strengthened shareholders’ rights can be associated with an increase in Non-Performing Loans (NPLs), thereby challenging the linear positive relationship often assumed in mainstream finance literature. This research moves beyond merely diagnosing this anomaly to proposing a explanatory model: it demonstrates that in the presence of powerful informal networks and weak formal enforcement, enhanced shareholder power can be co-opted to facilitate preferential lending rather than prudent oversight. By integrating Stakeholder Theory with empirical evidence from an under-researched context, this study contributes a critical nuanced understanding that the efficacy of governance norms is contingent upon their interaction with local socio-political realities, offering a vital caveat for both theory development and the transnational application of governance codes. 9. Study limitations This study is subject to several limitations that should be considered when interpreting its findings. Firstly, the cross-sectional research design, while revealing significant associations, prevents the establishment of definitive causal relationships between the governance variables and non-performing loan levels over time. Secondly, the reliance on a “perceived view” of NPLs from bank employees and board members, rather than audited financial data, may introduce perceptual biases, even as it provides valuable insider perspectives on governance practices. Thirdly, the geographic focus on commercial banks in Western Uganda, though deliberate, limits the generalizability of the findings to other regions or to non-bank financial institutions. Finally, while the mixed-methods approach identified the role of informal networks, the study did not directly measure the specific nature and intensity of these influences, such as clan or ethnic ties, pointing to a need for more precise metrics in future research. Ethical approval and consent to participate The procedures and ethical standards employed in this research were rigorously aligned with the Declaration of Helsinki. The study protocol was reviewed and granted approval by Kampala International University Ethics Committee (Approval Number: KIU-2024-356) and Uganda National Councial for Science and Technology (Approval Number: SS3114ES). Prior to their participation, all subjects were provided with a detailed information sheet explaining the study’s purpose, procedures, potential risks, and benefits. Written informed consent was subsequently obtained from each participant. The confidentiality and anonymity of all participant data were maintained throughout the research. Informed consent statement Prior to their involvement in the research, all prospective participants were provided with a comprehensive overview of the study. This briefing detailed the study’s primary objectives, the specific procedures they would undergo, the potential benefits of participation, and any foreseeable risks or discomforts. To ensure informed and voluntary consent, each individual was required to read and sign a document outlining these elements. Furthermore, it was explicitly communicated that participation was entirely voluntary and could be discontinued at any point without consequence or penalty. The confidentiality of all collected data and the anonymity of the participants were rigorously guaranteed. Data availability Underlying Zenodo: Strengthened Shareholders’ Rights, Increased Risk: The Paradox of Rising Non-Performing Loans in Ugandan Commercial Banks. Data associated with this article can be accessed on https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17548668 ( Sewanyina, 2025 ) This project contains the following underlying data: • PhD data set 2024 II.csv (Raw survey data collected from employees, board members and clients of selected commercial banks in western Uganda). Extended data Zenodo: Strengthened Shareholders’ Rights, Increased Risk: The Paradox of Rising Non-Performing Loans in Ugandan Commercial Banks. Extended data associated with this article can be accessed on https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17548668 ( Sewanyina, 2025 ) This project contains the following extended data: • DATA COLLECTION TOOLS FINAL.pdf (full survey instrument used to collect data from participants). • INFORMED CONSENT FORM REVISED FOR QUALITATIVE METHODS.pdf (approved consent form for qualitative data by Kampala International University Research Ethics Committee). Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0). References Adegboye A, et al. : Political connections and shareholder oversight in African banks. J. Corp. Finan. 2023; 78 : 102355. Agyemang OS, McMenamin J: Shareholder engagement and non-performing loans in Ghanaian banks: A longitudinal study. J. Afr. Bus. 2023; 24 (2): 245–267. Al-Nasser Mohammed AF, Muhammed SS: Stewardship theory and its relevance to corporate governance. Int. J. Econ. Financ. Issues. 2017; 7 (4): 184–189. Bank of Uganda: Annual Supervisory Report. Kampala, Uganda: 2023. Budi S: The challenge of stakeholder trade-offs in corporate governance. Corp. Gov. 2021; 29 (3): 245–260. Claessens S, Kodres L: Regulatory compliance and stakeholder governance in banking. J. Financ. Stab. 2022; 61 : 101038. DeYoung R, et al. : Reputational risk and non-performing loans in the European debt crisis. J. Bank. Financ. 2023; 147 : 106645. Freeman RE: Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman; 1984. Freeman RE, Wicks AC, Parmar B: Stakeholder theory and “The corporate objective revisited”. Organ. Sci. 2004; 15 (3): 364–369. Publisher Full Text Freeman RE, et al. : Stakeholder theory and risk management in financial institutions. J. Bus. Ethics. 2021; 170 (2): 267–282. García-Meca E, Sánchez-Ballesta JP: The impact of ESG on non-performing loans: A stakeholder perspective. J. Int. Financ. Mark. Inst. Money. 2024; 91 : 101965. Rahman M, Saeed A: Shareholder transparency and non-performing loan prevention: A cross-country analysis. Glob. Financ. J. 2022; 53 : 100702. Sewanyina M: Strengthened Shareholders’ Rights, Increased Risk: The Paradox of Rising Non-Performing Loans in Ugandan Commercial Banks. [Data set]. Zenodo. 2025. Publisher Full Text Singh P, Jain A: Shareholder rights and non-performing loans: A cross-country multilevel analysis. Int. Rev. Financ. Anal. 2023; 87 : 102615. Sundaram AK, Inkpen AC: The corporate objective revisited. Organ. Sci. 2004; 15 (3): 350–363. Publisher Full Text Tarchouna A, Jarraya B, Bouri A: Corporate governance and non-performing loans: Evidence from U.S. commercial banks. J. Financ. Stab. 2022; 48 : 100745. Publisher Full Text Tumwine S, Kyeyune M: Governance reforms and bank asset quality in Uganda: A difference-in-differences analysis. Afr. J. Econ. Manag. Stud. 2022; 13 (2): 210–225. Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 17 Nov 2025 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details 1 Department of Business Administration, Kampala International University - Western Campus, Bushenyi, Western Region, Uganda 2 Department of Business Administration, Kampala International University - Western Campus, Bushenyi, Western Region, Uganda 3 Department of Business Administration, Kampala International University - Western Campus, Bushenyi, Western Region, Uganda 4 Department of Business Administration, Kampala International University - Western Campus, Bushenyi, Western Region, Uganda Muniru Sewanyina Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Software, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing David Nyambane Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Project Administration, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Michael Manyange Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Investigation, Project Administration, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Sunday Arthur Roles: Conceptualization, Project Administration, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Article Versions (1) version 1 Published: 17 Nov 2025, 14:1264 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.171943.1 Copyright © 2025 Sewanyina M et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics Views Downloads F1000Research - - PubMed Central info_outline Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. - - Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article Sewanyina M, Nyambane D, Manyange M and Arthur S. Strengthened Shareholders' Rights, Increased Risk: The Paradox of Rising Non-Performing Loans in Ugandan Commercial Banks [version 1; peer review: 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :1264 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.171943.1 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 17 Nov 2025 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Isakov O. Reviewer Report For: Strengthened Shareholders' Rights, Increased Risk: The Paradox of Rising Non-Performing Loans in Ugandan Commercial Banks [version 1; peer review: 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :1264 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.189613.r434508 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1264/v1#referee-response-434508 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 24 Dec 2025 Olmas Isakov , Westminster International University in Tashkent, Tashkent, Tashkent Province, Uzbekistan Not Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.189613.r434508 Here are my comments: 1) I cross-checked several cited articles, such as García-Meca & Sánchez-Ballesta, 2024 and Tarchouna et al., 2022 from Introduction and could not find these articles. 2) The sample selection method is very suspicious: the sample size is small ... Continue reading READ ALL Here are my comments: 1) I cross-checked several cited articles, such as García-Meca & Sánchez-Ballesta, 2024 and Tarchouna et al., 2022 from Introduction and could not find these articles. 2) The sample selection method is very suspicious: the sample size is small (195), but they claim to have used three different sampling methods: 1) purposive (non-probability), SRS and stratified (probability). I did not see any justification on why so many different methods were used. 3) While authors have used simple linear regression, some of the interpretations are redundant. They are providing results of F-test from ANOVA and t-test from the regression table. For simple linear regression, they would be the same, they do not have to explain the same thing twice. 4) I tried to open the data source, but it is not available. 5) Overall, this research is very basic, I do not see research contribution and they need to control for many other variables by using at least multiple linear regression (at minimum). Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? No Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? No Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? No Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Financial Inclusion, non-performing loans, dynamic panel data analysis, Statistical analysis. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Isakov O. Reviewer Report For: Strengthened Shareholders' Rights, Increased Risk: The Paradox of Rising Non-Performing Loans in Ugandan Commercial Banks [version 1; peer review: 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :1264 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.189613.r434508 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1264/v1#referee-response-434508 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Hang BTT. Reviewer Report For: Strengthened Shareholders' Rights, Increased Risk: The Paradox of Rising Non-Performing Loans in Ugandan Commercial Banks [version 1; peer review: 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :1264 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.189613.r434515 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1264/v1#referee-response-434515 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 15 Dec 2025 Bui Thi Thu Hang , Tay Nguyen University, Buon Ma Thuot, Đắk Lắk Province, Vietnam Not Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.189613.r434515 Overall Recommendation Not Approved (major revisions required) General Assessment The manuscript addresses an important and policy-relevant topic in banking governance, particularly in emerging-market contexts: the potential paradox whereby strengthening shareholders’ rights may coincide with heightened ... Continue reading READ ALL Overall Recommendation Not Approved (major revisions required) General Assessment The manuscript addresses an important and policy-relevant topic in banking governance, particularly in emerging-market contexts: the potential paradox whereby strengthening shareholders’ rights may coincide with heightened risk and rising non-performing loans (NPLs). The mixed-methods approach (quantitative survey complemented by qualitative interviews) is, in principle, appropriate for exploring governance mechanisms where archival data may be limited. However, the current version raises substantial concerns regarding the measurement of NPLs, research design, analytical strategy, and interpretation of findings. These issues collectively weaken the credibility and inferential strength of the manuscript’s central claims. Substantial revisions are therefore required before the study can be considered for Indexing. Major Comments Major Comment 1: Measurement of NPLs as “perceptions” undermines the credibility of core conclusions The dependent variable is operationalized using respondents’ perceptions/subjective assessments of NPLs and NPL handling, rather than objective indicators such as NPL ratios from audited financial statements, supervisory reports, or regulatory disclosures. Several survey items appear to capture processes and perceived difficulties of NPL management (e.g., restructuring procedures, recovery processes, institutional arrangements) rather than the level or change in NPLs as conventionally defined in accounting and prudential regulation. Why this matters: If the outcome is perceptual, the empirical results can only support conclusions about how organizational actors perceive the NPL situation or the effectiveness of NPL management, not whether NPLs have actually increased or decreased in a financial or supervisory sense. At present, the manuscript’s framing and conclusions risk conflating “perceived NPL conditions” with “actual NPL outcomes.” Required revisions: Clearly and consistently specify whether the study investigates perceived NPL conditions/NPL management or objective NPL outcomes. Revise the title/abstract/conclusions to avoid implying that the results reflect actual NPL ratios unless objective data are incorporated. If the authors intend to make claims about actual NPL outcomes, incorporate secondary/archival measures (e.g., bank-level NPL ratios, provisioning, charge-offs) or provide a robust justification and explicit limitations framing the perceptual measure strictly as a proxy. Major Comment 2: High risk of common method bias (CMB) Both the independent variable (shareholders’ rights) and the dependent variable (perceived NPLs) are collected from the same respondents, using the same questionnaire instrument, at the same time. This design substantially increases the likelihood of common method variance, which can inflate observed correlations and regression coefficients, especially in perceptual, Likert-scale measures. Required revisions: Provide formal diagnostics and/or remedies for CMB (e.g., Harman’s single-factor test is a minimal baseline; more robust approaches include marker-variable techniques or CFA/SEM models with a method factor). Describe procedural remedies used in survey design and administration (e.g., anonymity, psychological separation of constructs, item randomization, reverse-coded items, neutral wording, reducing evaluation apprehension). Major Comment 3: Cross-sectional design does not support causal language or “mitigation” claims The study is cross-sectional and correlational. As such, it can establish association but cannot identify temporal ordering or causal effects. Nevertheless, the manuscript uses causal phrasing and strong policy claims (e.g., “determinant,” “causal pathways,” “mitigating NPLs”), which is not warranted given the design. Required revisions: Reframe claims consistently as associations rather than causal effects. Avoid language implying causal mechanisms unless supported by stronger identification strategies (e.g., longitudinal/panel designs, quasi-experimental methods such as difference-in-differences, or other credible causal inference approaches). Major Comment 4: Oversimplified analytical model and omitted variable concerns The use of bivariate correlation and simple linear regression with a single predictor is insufficient given the multifactorial drivers of NPLs (or perceived NPL conditions). Credit quality and NPL dynamics are influenced by macroeconomic conditions, underwriting standards, portfolio composition, risk governance capacity, incentives, provisioning policy, and institutional/regulatory factors. Why this matters: The estimated relationship may suffer from omitted variable bias and may inadvertently capture broader constructs (e.g., “good governance perception”) rather than the specific effect of shareholders’ rights. Required revisions: Introduce theoretically motivated control variables at minimum (respondent role, tenure, function; bank size, ownership, capitalization, etc., depending on data availability). Consider multivariate models or a measurement-structural framework (e.g., CFA/SEM) if constructs are latent and measured by multiple items. Major Comment 5: Insufficient evidence for measurement reliability and validity The manuscript states that “validated scales” are used, but it does not provide adequate evidence regarding: internal consistency (e.g., Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability), convergent/discriminant validity (e.g., AVE, HTMT), factor structure (CFA/EFA results), and the adaptation process (translation, contextualization, pilot testing). Given the centrality of survey measures, this is a major methodological omission. Required revisions: Report reliability and validity statistics for all constructs. Provide details on instrument development/adaptation, including any pilot testing and item refinement. Major Comment 6: Qualitative component requires greater methodological transparency (“rigor”) The qualitative interviews (n=6) can enrich contextual interpretation, but the manuscript provides limited detail regarding: sampling rationale and participant selection, evidence of thematic saturation, coding procedures, inter-coder reliability (if applicable), and how qualitative findings are integrated with quantitative results. Required revisions: Provide a transparent qualitative methods section: sampling strategy, interview protocol, coding approach, saturation justification, and integration logic. Avoid presenting qualitative themes as causal confirmation unless supported by appropriate methodological rigor. Major Comment 7: Social desirability bias and research ethics need clearer treatment Surveying bank employees and board members about NPLs and governance is inherently sensitive. Respondents may self-censor or provide socially desirable responses, particularly if confidentiality assurances are unclear. Required revisions: Explicitly describe ethics approval (where applicable), informed consent procedures, confidentiality/anonymity protections, and steps taken to reduce evaluation apprehension and social desirability bias. Minor Comments Inconsistencies in reporting (e.g., software version used for analysis) should be corrected for clarity and reproducibility. Sample size inconsistencies across the narrative and tables should be reconciled, with a clear account of exclusions and missing data handling. Provide explicit description of data cleaning, missing data strategy, outlier handling, and regression assumption checks (linearity, homoscedasticity, influential observations). Clarify the conceptual scope of “shareholders’ rights” (which specific rights are captured) and ensure the measure is not conflated with broader “overall governance quality.” Concluding Evaluation The manuscript has the potential to contribute to the governance–risk literature in banking. Nevertheless, in its current form, the study’s evidentiary base does not support the strength of its claims, primarily due to the perceptual operationalization of NPLs, cross-sectional design limitations, and underdeveloped measurement validation. Addressing the concerns above—particularly measurement validity, common method bias, model specification, and cautious interpretation—would substantially improve the manuscript’s methodological credibility and scholarly contribution. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Banking and financial economics; corporate governance in financial institutions; risk management and non-performing loans; empirical research methods in finance (with a focus on research design and quantitative analysis). I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Hang BTT. Reviewer Report For: Strengthened Shareholders' Rights, Increased Risk: The Paradox of Rising Non-Performing Loans in Ugandan Commercial Banks [version 1; peer review: 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :1264 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.189613.r434515 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1264/v1#referee-response-434515 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 17 Nov 2025 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 2 Version 1 17 Nov 25 read read Bui Thi Thu Hang , Tay Nguyen University, Buon Ma Thuot, Vietnam Olmas Isakov , Westminster International University in Tashkent, Tashkent, Uzbekistan Comments on this article All Comments (0) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert Browse by related subjects keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Isakov O. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 24 Dec 2025 | for Version 1 Olmas Isakov , Westminster International University in Tashkent, Tashkent, Tashkent Province, Uzbekistan 0 Views copyright © 2025 Isakov O. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Not Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Here are my comments: 1) I cross-checked several cited articles, such as García-Meca & Sánchez-Ballesta, 2024 and Tarchouna et al., 2022 from Introduction and could not find these articles. 2) The sample selection method is very suspicious: the sample size is small (195), but they claim to have used three different sampling methods: 1) purposive (non-probability), SRS and stratified (probability). I did not see any justification on why so many different methods were used. 3) While authors have used simple linear regression, some of the interpretations are redundant. They are providing results of F-test from ANOVA and t-test from the regression table. For simple linear regression, they would be the same, they do not have to explain the same thing twice. 4) I tried to open the data source, but it is not available. 5) Overall, this research is very basic, I do not see research contribution and they need to control for many other variables by using at least multiple linear regression (at minimum). Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? No Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? No Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? No Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Financial Inclusion, non-performing loans, dynamic panel data analysis, Statistical analysis. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Isakov O. Peer Review Report For: Strengthened Shareholders' Rights, Increased Risk: The Paradox of Rising Non-Performing Loans in Ugandan Commercial Banks [version 1; peer review: 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :1264 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.189613.r434508) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1264/v1#referee-response-434508 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Hang B. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 15 Dec 2025 | for Version 1 Bui Thi Thu Hang , Tay Nguyen University, Buon Ma Thuot, Đắk Lắk Province, Vietnam 0 Views copyright © 2025 Hang B. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Not Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Overall Recommendation Not Approved (major revisions required) General Assessment The manuscript addresses an important and policy-relevant topic in banking governance, particularly in emerging-market contexts: the potential paradox whereby strengthening shareholders’ rights may coincide with heightened risk and rising non-performing loans (NPLs). The mixed-methods approach (quantitative survey complemented by qualitative interviews) is, in principle, appropriate for exploring governance mechanisms where archival data may be limited. However, the current version raises substantial concerns regarding the measurement of NPLs, research design, analytical strategy, and interpretation of findings. These issues collectively weaken the credibility and inferential strength of the manuscript’s central claims. Substantial revisions are therefore required before the study can be considered for Indexing. Major Comments Major Comment 1: Measurement of NPLs as “perceptions” undermines the credibility of core conclusions The dependent variable is operationalized using respondents’ perceptions/subjective assessments of NPLs and NPL handling, rather than objective indicators such as NPL ratios from audited financial statements, supervisory reports, or regulatory disclosures. Several survey items appear to capture processes and perceived difficulties of NPL management (e.g., restructuring procedures, recovery processes, institutional arrangements) rather than the level or change in NPLs as conventionally defined in accounting and prudential regulation. Why this matters: If the outcome is perceptual, the empirical results can only support conclusions about how organizational actors perceive the NPL situation or the effectiveness of NPL management, not whether NPLs have actually increased or decreased in a financial or supervisory sense. At present, the manuscript’s framing and conclusions risk conflating “perceived NPL conditions” with “actual NPL outcomes.” Required revisions: Clearly and consistently specify whether the study investigates perceived NPL conditions/NPL management or objective NPL outcomes. Revise the title/abstract/conclusions to avoid implying that the results reflect actual NPL ratios unless objective data are incorporated. If the authors intend to make claims about actual NPL outcomes, incorporate secondary/archival measures (e.g., bank-level NPL ratios, provisioning, charge-offs) or provide a robust justification and explicit limitations framing the perceptual measure strictly as a proxy. Major Comment 2: High risk of common method bias (CMB) Both the independent variable (shareholders’ rights) and the dependent variable (perceived NPLs) are collected from the same respondents, using the same questionnaire instrument, at the same time. This design substantially increases the likelihood of common method variance, which can inflate observed correlations and regression coefficients, especially in perceptual, Likert-scale measures. Required revisions: Provide formal diagnostics and/or remedies for CMB (e.g., Harman’s single-factor test is a minimal baseline; more robust approaches include marker-variable techniques or CFA/SEM models with a method factor). Describe procedural remedies used in survey design and administration (e.g., anonymity, psychological separation of constructs, item randomization, reverse-coded items, neutral wording, reducing evaluation apprehension). Major Comment 3: Cross-sectional design does not support causal language or “mitigation” claims The study is cross-sectional and correlational. As such, it can establish association but cannot identify temporal ordering or causal effects. Nevertheless, the manuscript uses causal phrasing and strong policy claims (e.g., “determinant,” “causal pathways,” “mitigating NPLs”), which is not warranted given the design. Required revisions: Reframe claims consistently as associations rather than causal effects. Avoid language implying causal mechanisms unless supported by stronger identification strategies (e.g., longitudinal/panel designs, quasi-experimental methods such as difference-in-differences, or other credible causal inference approaches). Major Comment 4: Oversimplified analytical model and omitted variable concerns The use of bivariate correlation and simple linear regression with a single predictor is insufficient given the multifactorial drivers of NPLs (or perceived NPL conditions). Credit quality and NPL dynamics are influenced by macroeconomic conditions, underwriting standards, portfolio composition, risk governance capacity, incentives, provisioning policy, and institutional/regulatory factors. Why this matters: The estimated relationship may suffer from omitted variable bias and may inadvertently capture broader constructs (e.g., “good governance perception”) rather than the specific effect of shareholders’ rights. Required revisions: Introduce theoretically motivated control variables at minimum (respondent role, tenure, function; bank size, ownership, capitalization, etc., depending on data availability). Consider multivariate models or a measurement-structural framework (e.g., CFA/SEM) if constructs are latent and measured by multiple items. Major Comment 5: Insufficient evidence for measurement reliability and validity The manuscript states that “validated scales” are used, but it does not provide adequate evidence regarding: internal consistency (e.g., Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability), convergent/discriminant validity (e.g., AVE, HTMT), factor structure (CFA/EFA results), and the adaptation process (translation, contextualization, pilot testing). Given the centrality of survey measures, this is a major methodological omission. Required revisions: Report reliability and validity statistics for all constructs. Provide details on instrument development/adaptation, including any pilot testing and item refinement. Major Comment 6: Qualitative component requires greater methodological transparency (“rigor”) The qualitative interviews (n=6) can enrich contextual interpretation, but the manuscript provides limited detail regarding: sampling rationale and participant selection, evidence of thematic saturation, coding procedures, inter-coder reliability (if applicable), and how qualitative findings are integrated with quantitative results. Required revisions: Provide a transparent qualitative methods section: sampling strategy, interview protocol, coding approach, saturation justification, and integration logic. Avoid presenting qualitative themes as causal confirmation unless supported by appropriate methodological rigor. Major Comment 7: Social desirability bias and research ethics need clearer treatment Surveying bank employees and board members about NPLs and governance is inherently sensitive. Respondents may self-censor or provide socially desirable responses, particularly if confidentiality assurances are unclear. Required revisions: Explicitly describe ethics approval (where applicable), informed consent procedures, confidentiality/anonymity protections, and steps taken to reduce evaluation apprehension and social desirability bias. Minor Comments Inconsistencies in reporting (e.g., software version used for analysis) should be corrected for clarity and reproducibility. Sample size inconsistencies across the narrative and tables should be reconciled, with a clear account of exclusions and missing data handling. Provide explicit description of data cleaning, missing data strategy, outlier handling, and regression assumption checks (linearity, homoscedasticity, influential observations). Clarify the conceptual scope of “shareholders’ rights” (which specific rights are captured) and ensure the measure is not conflated with broader “overall governance quality.” Concluding Evaluation The manuscript has the potential to contribute to the governance–risk literature in banking. Nevertheless, in its current form, the study’s evidentiary base does not support the strength of its claims, primarily due to the perceptual operationalization of NPLs, cross-sectional design limitations, and underdeveloped measurement validation. Addressing the concerns above—particularly measurement validity, common method bias, model specification, and cautious interpretation—would substantially improve the manuscript’s methodological credibility and scholarly contribution. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Banking and financial economics; corporate governance in financial institutions; risk management and non-performing loans; empirical research methods in finance (with a focus on research design and quantitative analysis). I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Hang BTT. Peer Review Report For: Strengthened Shareholders' Rights, Increased Risk: The Paradox of Rising Non-Performing Loans in Ugandan Commercial Banks [version 1; peer review: 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :1264 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.189613.r434515) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1264/v1#referee-response-434515 Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with F1000Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "Strengthened Shareholders\' Rights, Increased...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1264/v1" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1264/v1&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1264/v1" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Sewanyina M et al.'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1264/v1/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1264", templates : { twitter : "Strengthened Shareholders\' Rights, Increased Risk: The Paradox.... Sewanyina M et al., published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1264/v1" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/171943/189613") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "189613"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "434516": 0, "434517": 0, "434514": 0, "434515": 7, "434512": 0, "434513": 0, "434510": 0, "434511": 0, "434508": 3, "434509": 0, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "312be2ab-d489-4a71-be56-801010cdfb05"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); An innovative open access publishing platform offering rapid publication and open peer review, whilst supporting data deposition and sharing. Browse Gateways Collections How it Works Contact For Developers Cookie Notice Privacy Notice RSS Submit Your Research Follow us © 2012-2026 F1000 Research Ltd. ISSN 2046-1402 | Legal | Partner of Research4Life • CrossRef • ORCID • FAIRSharing R.templateTests.simpleTemplate = R.template(' $text $text $text $text $text '); R.templateTests.runTests(); var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "f1000research", displayName: "F1000Research", hostName: "f1000research.com", id: "1", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]", usePmcStats: true }); $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-authors, .dropdown-for-about, .dropdown-for-myresearch');}); // $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-referees');}); $(document).ready(function () { if ($(".cookie-warning").is(":visible")) { $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "35px"); $(".devices").addClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); } $(".cookie-warning .close-button").click(function (e) { $(".devices").removeClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "0"); }); $("#tweeter-feed .tweet-message").each(function (i, message) { var self = $(message); self.html(linkify(self.html())); }); $(".partner").on("mouseenter mouseleave", function() { $(this).find(".gray-scale, .colour").toggleClass("is-hidden"); }); }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); });