MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2737545997 · doi:10.1177/0972652717712352

Significant Difference in the Yields of <i>Sukuk</i> Bonds versus Conventional Bonds

2017· article· en· W2737545997 on OpenAlexaff
Mohamed Ariff, Abdelaziz Chazi, Meysam Safari, Alireza Zarei

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Emerging Market Finance · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicIslamic Finance and Banking Studies
Canadian institutionsPrivacy Analytics (Canada)
FundersAmerican University of SharjahUniversiti Putra MalaysiaUniversity of Sharjah
KeywordsBondSukukTreasuryBond market indexDebtMonetary economicsBond marketEconomicsBond valuationFinancial economicsFixed incomeZero-coupon bondBusinessFinancial systemFinanceIslamic financeIslam

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bond yields of Treasury and corporate bonds are observed in a listed exchange. This article reports the findings on the market yield behaviour of two types of debt securities in the same exchange, the sharia-compliant sukuk bonds and the normal conventional bonds. There are 17 exchanges where sukuk bonds are traded, and the outstanding value is estimated at US$ 1,200 billion. The average yields of sukuk Treasury bonds are significantly higher (premium) than that of conventional Treasury bonds. On the other hand, investors in the sukuk corporate bonds receive slightly lower returns (discount) of about 25 basis points in the case of long-term sukuk bonds. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to verify these differences using appropriate advanced econometric methods. These results have far-reaching implications for the market practices as well as for teaching of bond pricing behaviour since this new form of debt markets is growing at about 17 per cent a year. JEL Classification: F23, F31, G12

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.535
Threshold uncertainty score0.426

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Emerging Market FinanceSame topicIslamic Finance and Banking StudiesFrench-language works237,207