盈亏分担与利益契约选择的理论分析:一个简单的博弈模型

IF 2.8 Q2 BUSINESS, FINANCE
Reza Gholami, Aisyah Abdul-Rahman, Fathin Faizah Said, Nor Ghani Md Nor
{"title":"盈亏分担与利益契约选择的理论分析:一个简单的博弈模型","authors":"Reza Gholami, Aisyah Abdul-Rahman, Fathin Faizah Said, Nor Ghani Md Nor","doi":"10.55188/ijif.v15i3.614","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose — This study aims to investigate how participants decide between profit-loss sharing contracts (PLSC) and interest-based contracts (IBC) in an interactive environment. PLSC and IBC are two interesting financial arrangements. They are similar in that both transfer money from people who have excess money to those who are in need, but they are extremely different in sharing risks between participants. \nDesign/Methodology/Approach — The participants’ profits change based on their role (as an investor or entrepreneur) and the selected contract because the contracts are entirely different in sharing or shifting risks. Thus, in the first step, various profit functions are constructed that differ according to each party’s role and major factors relevant to each contract. Afterwards, a mathematical game model (GM) is developed to consider the parties’ interaction concurrently. A numerical example also verifies the results. \nFindings — The results show that the business output level, auditing costs, collateral related costs, and market conditions or state of the economy (SoE) are major factors in deciding between IBC and PLSC. \nOriginality/Value — This research sets up various profit functions (based on players’ roles and contracts), enriching them by the contract-related factors and SoE and developing a GM. The existing literature focuses on the investor’s optimal contract, while concluding a contract needs the mutual consent of the involved parties, not only the investor’s inclination. \nPractical Implication — This research provides a guideline for ‘parties’ share in PLSC’ and generally accepted auditing standards for auditing PLSC.","PeriodicalId":54072,"journal":{"name":"ISRA International Journal of Islamic Finance","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Theoretical Analysis in Choosing Between Profit-Loss Sharing and Interest-Based Contracts: A Simple Game Model\",\"authors\":\"Reza Gholami, Aisyah Abdul-Rahman, Fathin Faizah Said, Nor Ghani Md Nor\",\"doi\":\"10.55188/ijif.v15i3.614\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose — This study aims to investigate how participants decide between profit-loss sharing contracts (PLSC) and interest-based contracts (IBC) in an interactive environment. PLSC and IBC are two interesting financial arrangements. They are similar in that both transfer money from people who have excess money to those who are in need, but they are extremely different in sharing risks between participants. \\nDesign/Methodology/Approach — The participants’ profits change based on their role (as an investor or entrepreneur) and the selected contract because the contracts are entirely different in sharing or shifting risks. Thus, in the first step, various profit functions are constructed that differ according to each party’s role and major factors relevant to each contract. Afterwards, a mathematical game model (GM) is developed to consider the parties’ interaction concurrently. A numerical example also verifies the results. \\nFindings — The results show that the business output level, auditing costs, collateral related costs, and market conditions or state of the economy (SoE) are major factors in deciding between IBC and PLSC. \\nOriginality/Value — This research sets up various profit functions (based on players’ roles and contracts), enriching them by the contract-related factors and SoE and developing a GM. The existing literature focuses on the investor’s optimal contract, while concluding a contract needs the mutual consent of the involved parties, not only the investor’s inclination. \\nPractical Implication — This research provides a guideline for ‘parties’ share in PLSC’ and generally accepted auditing standards for auditing PLSC.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54072,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ISRA International Journal of Islamic Finance\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ISRA International Journal of Islamic Finance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.55188/ijif.v15i3.614\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ISRA International Journal of Islamic Finance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.55188/ijif.v15i3.614","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究旨在探讨参与者如何在互动环境中选择盈亏分担合同(PLSC)和基于利益的合同(IBC)。PLSC和IBC是两种有趣的财务安排。它们的相似之处在于,都是将资金从拥有多余资金的人那里转移到有需要的人那里,但它们在参与者之间分担风险方面却截然不同。 设计/方法论/方法-参与者的利润根据他们的角色(作为投资者或企业家)和所选择的合同而变化,因为合同在分担或转移风险方面完全不同。因此,在第一步中,根据每个当事人的角色和与每个合同相关的主要因素,构建各种不同的利润函数。在此基础上,建立了同时考虑双方相互作用的数学博弈模型。数值算例也验证了结果。 结果表明,业务产出水平、审计成本、抵押品相关成本和市场条件或经济状况(SoE)是决定IBC和PLSC之间的主要因素。 原创性/价值——本研究建立了各种利润函数(基于参与者角色和契约),通过契约相关因素和国有企业来丰富这些函数,并发展了一个GM。现有文献关注的是投资者的最优契约,而订立契约需要各方的共同同意,而不仅仅是投资者的倾向。 实际意义-本研究提供了“各方”在PLSC的份额和审计PLSC普遍接受的审计准则的指导方针。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Theoretical Analysis in Choosing Between Profit-Loss Sharing and Interest-Based Contracts: A Simple Game Model
Purpose — This study aims to investigate how participants decide between profit-loss sharing contracts (PLSC) and interest-based contracts (IBC) in an interactive environment. PLSC and IBC are two interesting financial arrangements. They are similar in that both transfer money from people who have excess money to those who are in need, but they are extremely different in sharing risks between participants. Design/Methodology/Approach — The participants’ profits change based on their role (as an investor or entrepreneur) and the selected contract because the contracts are entirely different in sharing or shifting risks. Thus, in the first step, various profit functions are constructed that differ according to each party’s role and major factors relevant to each contract. Afterwards, a mathematical game model (GM) is developed to consider the parties’ interaction concurrently. A numerical example also verifies the results. Findings — The results show that the business output level, auditing costs, collateral related costs, and market conditions or state of the economy (SoE) are major factors in deciding between IBC and PLSC. Originality/Value — This research sets up various profit functions (based on players’ roles and contracts), enriching them by the contract-related factors and SoE and developing a GM. The existing literature focuses on the investor’s optimal contract, while concluding a contract needs the mutual consent of the involved parties, not only the investor’s inclination. Practical Implication — This research provides a guideline for ‘parties’ share in PLSC’ and generally accepted auditing standards for auditing PLSC.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
17.40%
发文量
18
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: It is the aspiration of the editorial committee that IJIF achieves the highest rank in quality and substance. It is thus our aim that the journal be carried in the Thompson Reuters’ ISI and Scopus databases. By ensuring high standards in articles published in Islamic finance we ensure that further innovation and research is carried out and promoted in the Islamic finance industry and academia. IJIF publishes 2 issues per annum.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信