MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3040557010 · doi:10.5430/ijfr.v11n3p106

Credit Risk, Islamic Contracts and Ownership Status: Evidence From Malaysian Islamic Banks

2020· article· en· W3040557010 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Faridah Najuna Misman, Wahida Ahmad, Noor Sufiawati Khairani, Nur Hazimah Amran

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Financial Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicIslamic Finance and Banking Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversiti Teknologi MARA
KeywordsIslamCredit riskBusinessPanel dataSample (material)Equity (law)Capital adequacy ratioFinancial systemFinanceEconomicsEconometricsProfit (economics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper attempts to model the key drivers of credit risk for Islamic banks in Malaysia. This paper is motivated to introduce Islamic financing types (IFT) and banks ownership status (STATUS) as additional factors in investigating the key drivers. This study also investigates the level of credit risk between the crisis and non-crisis period. This study employs a panel data analysis method using generalized least squares (GLS) regression for random effect model. The dependent variable is credit risk which assumed to be a function of bank-specific variables and other potential variables that are ownership status, Islamic financing types and financial crisis. The sample of this study comprised of 160 observations for 15 full-fledged Islamic banks in Malaysia, covering the period of 2000 to 2016. The finding suggests that financing expansion, financing and capital buffer are amongst important drivers that significantly influence the level of credit risk of Malaysian Islamic banks. The estimation results of this study also suggest that any Islamic bank that offers equity-based financing (EBF) has significantly higher credit risk.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Financial ResearchSame topicIslamic Finance and Banking StudiesFrench-language works237,207