MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3020997669 · doi:10.3390/jrfm13050089

The Determinants of Credit Risk: An Evidence from ASEAN and GCC Islamic Banks

2020· article· en· W3020997669 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Faridah Najuna Misman, M. Ishaq Bhatti

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicIslamic Finance and Banking Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCredit riskPanel dataBusinessFinancial systemFinancial crisisIslamCredit historyCapital adequacy ratioCredit crunchFinanceEconomicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In less than a decade, the Islamic Banking (IB) industry has become an essential part of the global financial system. During the last ten years, the IB industry has witnessed changes in economic conditions and proved to be resilient during the periods of financial crisis. This paper aims to examine the important issues related to credit risk in selected Islamic banks in nine countries from Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) and Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) regions. It employs the generalized least squares panel data regression, to estimate the ratio of non-performance financing to total financing as dependent variables and bank specific variables (BSV) to determine the credit risk. It uses 12 years of unbalanced panel data from 40 different Islamic banks. The overall findings show that financing quality has a significant positive effect on credit risk. It is observed that the larger IBs owned more assets with lower credit risk compared to smaller banks. The bank’s age is also an important factor influencing the credit risk level. Moreover, regulatory capital significantly reduces the credit risk exposure adherence to the minimum regulatory capital requirements which help IBs to manage their credit risk exposures. It was also observed that IBs were not affected by the global financial crisis due to less credit risk compared to the conventional banks.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.747
Threshold uncertainty score0.438

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations56
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicIslamic Finance and Banking StudiesFrench-language works237,207