The relationship of guaranteed interest with managerial behavior, customers, and financial performance for banking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Guaranteed interest is crucial in financial systems, boosting depositor confidence and impacting bank risk. The discussion about guaranteed interest has been thorough, focusing on the reassurance it provides to depositors and the risks it brings. Although it prevents bank running, it can also make depositors too relaxed, potentially causing future crises. Previous research has focused on established guaranteed interest schemes, but there is still a gap in understanding the impact of introducing guaranteed interest during a crisis. This paper explores the relationship between guaranteed interest and managerial behavior, customers, and performance of conventional and Islamic banking. The research design uses existing statistics, with data obtained from the publications of the Financial Services Authority and Bank Indonesia. The analysis uses VAR/VECM models, with results showing that the movement of guaranteed interest rates (both rupiah and foreign currency) has a dominant impact on conventional banking compared to Islamic banking, both on bank managerial behavior, customer behavior, and the performance of the bank itself. Specifically, the movement of the guaranteed interest will trigger the management of conventional banks to increase loan interest, while from the customer side they will ask for a higher yield (interest) on third part funds (TPF). As a result, these two things will lead to a negative outcome on the performance of the bank itself, especially on Net Interest Margin (NIM), Return on Assets (ROA), Operational Expenditure to Operational Income (BOPO), and Loan to Deposit Ratio (LDR). In Islamic banks, the movement of the guaranteed interest also has an impact on the managerial behavior of the bank, customer behavior, and the performance of the bank itself, but the effect of the movement of the guaranteed interest is only small. Most of the growth in credit and deposits, fluctuations in financing margins and returns on deposits and dominant Islamic Financial Performance for Banking indicators are explained by factors other than movements in guaranteed interest rates.
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".