The Good and Bad News about the New Liquidity Rules of Basel III in Islamic Banking of Malaysia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How has Basel III (Bank for International Settlements), regarding the computation, measurement, and management of the liquidity coverage ratio (LCR), vitalized the Islamic banking sector in emerging economies? Vice versa, what is the Islamic banking sector’s capacity to respond in embracing Basel III? This study aims to review the current issues faced by a bank as it discusses the current regulatory guidelines and operational challenges in implementing the system. Based on the implementation of LCR preliminary secondary data of Malaysian banks between 2010 and 2016, this study finds that the readiness of LCR system implementation in the Islamic banking industry is currently low because LCR is still relatively new for all financial institutions and vendors. There is a huge gap between the present system infrastructure of the banks and the LCR model requirements as defined by BNM (Bank Negara Malaysia) under Basel III. Nevertheless, this finding opens new horizons of understanding and practically offers further investigations for the whole banking sector in Malaysia. Thus, policy makers, regulators, and industry players should utilize a unique framework for Islamic banks when strategizing liquidity risk management.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".