Did Conventional Interest Rate Influence Islamic Total Deposits? Evidence From January 2007 Till January 2019
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study is carried out to examine the influence of Malaysian conventional interest rate and narrow money supply (M1) upon the growth of Islamic total deposits (ITD) in Malaysia Islamic financial system. Even though it is a known fact that there is a clear separation between Islamic and conventional financial markets, the study is still pursued on the spirit of providing the latest empirical evidence. Since Malaysia is one of the biggest players in Islamic financial products, it is always the centre of attraction among the world investment community. Using 3-month Interbank rate (IBR) coupled with the deployment of Engle-Granger Cointegration Test (1987) as an estimation tool, the results from Error Correction model uncovers that ITD and IBR are not cointegated. There is also an absence of short-run relationship between these two variables. On the contrary, this bi-variate cointegration test proves the presence of equilibrium relationship between ITD and M1 but fail to support the dynamic relation between them. From the analysis of dynamic interactions via impulse-response functions and variance decomposition, the study reveals that ITD is the most exogenous variable of all. As such, ITD is unquestionably a leading economic indicator.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".