MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3141319973

Islamic Bank Incentives and Discretionary Loan Loss Provisions

2014· article· en· W3141319973 on OpenAlexaff
Greg Clinch, Sayd Farook, M. Kabir Hassan

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicIslamic Finance and Banking Studies
Canadian institutionsThomson Reuters (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLoanBusinessIncentiveProvisioningProfit (economics)IslamParticipation loanFinanceNon-performing loanActuarial scienceFinancial systemEconomicsMicroeconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this paper is to ascertain whether there are significant differences in the loan loss provisioning behaviour of Islamic banks as compared to conventional banks. We proposed that loan loss provisioning will be linked to the extent of profit distribution management. The results suggest that Islamic banks consistently record lower loan loss provisions. However, the association between profit distribution management and loan loss provisioning is mixed. The overall results tend to suggest that there is an inverse relationship between profit distribution management and loan loss provisions. The results also suggest that there are differential effects depending on whether the profit distribution management is for the benefit or the detriment of investment depositors. If there is a surplus of asset returns over profit distributions (positive profit distribution management), it is observed that Islamic banks increase their loan loss provisions. However, this result does not extend to the full sample containing both Islamic and conventional banks. Further, there is no effect where the profit distribution management is for the benefit of investment depositors.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicIslamic Finance and Banking StudiesFrench-language works237,207