An optimal Islamic investment decision in two-region economy: The case of Indonesia and Malaysia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this work, the possibility of cross-border activities between two regions in the framework of the investment contract is viewed as optimal allocation problems. The problems of determining the optimal proportion of funds to be invested in liquidity and technology are analyzed in two different environments. In the first case, we consider a two-region and two-technology economy in which both regions possess the same productive technology or project, but a different stream of return. While in the second case, we examine an economy where two regions (i.e., Indonesia and Malaysia) hold different Islamic productive projects with identical returns. Allocation models are formulated in terms of investors’ expected utility maximization problem under budget constraints with respect to regional and sectoral shocks. It is revealed that optimal parameters for liquidity ratio, technological investment profile, and bank repayment are analytically characterized by the return of a more productive project and the proportion of impatient and patient investors in the region. Even though both cases employ different assumptions, they provide the same expressions of optimal parameters. The model suggests that cross-border Islamic investment activities between two regions might be realized, provided both regions hold productive projects with an identical stream of return. This paper also shows that by increasing the lower return of the project approaching the higher return, a room for inter-region investment can be created. An analytical framework of an investment contract in terms of optimal allocation model is provided.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".