Mudharabah Deposits Among Conventional Bank Interest Rates, Profit-Sharing Rates, Liquidity and Inflation Rates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper aims to examine the effect of conventional bank interest rates (CBIR), profit-sharing rates (PS), the level of liquidity proxied in the finance-to-deposit ratio (FDR) and the inflation rate (IR) against mudharabah deposits (MDs). The sample comes from eight Islamic public banks registered in the Financial Services Authority (OJK) and Bank Indonesia (BI) for the period from 2013 to 2017. The research uses a data panel regression analysis using EViews 8 to test the significance of tribal-level influence on conventional bank interest, profit-sharing growth rate, liquidity level and inflation rate. The results provide evidence that conventional interest rates do not affect MDs; the profit-sharing rate has a significant positive effect on MDs; the FDR has a positive effect on MDs, and the IR does not affect MDs. The results can increase our understanding of the variables that affect the volume of MDs. The results of this research have practical implications for people who will invest, giving them a better basis for making deposit and investment decisions by looking at interest rates and profit-sharing systems that are in line with Islamic investment principles that apply no uncertainty (Garar), interest (Riba) and gambling (Maisir) investments to cover all aspects of life (way of life).
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".