MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2796850410 · doi:10.1080/1540496x.2018.1451323

Equity Pricing in Islamic Banks: International Evidence

2018· article· en· W2796850410 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEmerging Markets Finance and Trade · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicIslamic Finance and Banking Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersEconomic and Social Research Council
KeywordsEquity (law)Equity riskBusinessCost of equityEx-anteIslamSample (material)Islamic bankingEquity ratioEconomicsEquity capital marketsMonetary economicsFinancePrivate equityCost of capitalMicroeconomicsMacroeconomicsIncentive

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using a large sample of publicly listed banks, we assess the ex-ante cost of equity of Islamic banks and compare it with the ex-ante cost of equity of conventional banks. We show that the Islamic banks have, on an average, higher equity financing costs than the conventional banks. The difference in the cost of equity between the two banking systems is economically significant and varies greatly across countries. Moreover, we find that institutional quality improves the cost of equity for both Islamic and conventional banks, with a more pronounced effect for the former. Our findings are robust to alternative assumptions and model specifications, disproportionate analyst coverage pertaining to firm size, and other firm- and country-specific factors.

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.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.733
Threshold uncertainty score0.647

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.249 · 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