Academy of Accounting and Financial Studies Journal (Print ISSN: 1096-3685; Online ISSN: 1528-2635)

Research Article: 2021 Vol: 25 Issue: 4

Annuity Murabaha after Being Regulated in Indonesia, Is It Like Riba (USURY)?

Dodik Siswantoro, Department of Accounting Universitas Indonesia

Abstract

This paper aims to analyze the characteristics of Muslim scholars' preferences on annuity murabaha in Indonesia. Annuity income recognition of Murabaha is permissible from 2013 then it would be regulated in 2019. Annuity recognition has been practiced by conventional banks which are based on the interest rate. The research method applied is based on quantitative and qualitative methods using a survey on member of the public hearing group on revised murabaha accounting standard and discussion during the public hearing. Forty respondents participated in the survey. Data would be analyzed using factor analysis. Results show that most respondents do not agree with annuity recognition in murabaha, but no solution for this issue. No significant affecting factors on margin murabaha similar to riba, this may be caused some people have resigned to this issue. However, the higher the education would state that margin murabaha is similar to interest rate. This is similar to not use murabaha respondents. This is the first paper which responding the revision of annuity income recognition of murabaha accounting standard in Indonesia with specific requirements.

Keywords

Murabaha, Margin, Riba, Income, Recognition, Accounting.

Introduction

Murabaha has becoming a popular financing in Islamic banks in Indonesia since the first Islamic bank established in 1991. Murabaha is flexible, safe and low risk for Islamic banks. Murabaha is only used for selling transaction purpose. So it need some requirements to be fulfilled for this financing scheme. Not all transactions can be covered by murabaha, in fact many unsuitable transactions applied this scheme. Some Muslim scholars do not supports murabaha as proper Islamic finance especially for installment basis. The critic is on different margin along additional time period. The longer the period the bigger margin income. Rosly (1990) criticized this phenomenon on murabaha transaction in Malaysia which also may be applied to other countries like Indonesia. However, the increasing period my realate to risk which Islamic banks has to cover. While this may be similar to interest rate based lending. The longer the period, the bigger income margin bank would get. The difference is Islamic bank only charge fixed profit margin while conventional may refer to the volatility of interest rate.

In Indonesia, income recognition for murabahah is flat. It means profit recognition for each year is similar until complete. While, conventional bank may apply annuity rate basis which recognizes income higher in the beginning. This phenomenon was applied by Islamic banks in Malaysia which then copied in Indonesia. This practice occurred in Indonesia even though no legal accounting standard for this recognition. Then in 2013, this practice has been legalized after FAS No. 102 Murabahah accounting was revised which accommodated annuity recognition for profit.

This objective of the paper is to analyze the characteristics of Muslim scholars preferences on annuity murabaha in Indonesia. This would enrich the analysis how scholars respond the issue. This only occurs in Indonesia which concerned with customers responses on annuity profit recognition. This is the research gap of the paper which may only occur in Indonesia. In addition, respondents of the questionnaire are scholars who concerns with the revision of annuity income recognition of murabaha accounting standard.

The paper starts with the introduction which show how this issue occurred. Then literature review which discuss related theory on murabahah recognition income. Research method discusses identifying factors for preferences. Analysis would map preference factors on annuity murabaha in Indonesia. Lastly, it is the conclusion.

Literature Review

Murabahah is a popular Islamic financing scheme in Islamic banks including in Indonesia. This may be caused by simple, fixed return and easy from customers perspective. However, many critics occurred on this scheme such as possession of good for selling, increasing profit along period, and income recognition. In Islamic perspective, the issue of possession becomes an issue as seller should have items for sale. While, profit is borne to the risk (Al-Fijawi & Yunus, 2019). Difference in murabaha accounting caused by different fiqh interpreting pricing which may be an issue (Al-Fasfus, 2018).

Income recognition in murabaha became an issue when annuity recognition was legalized. Annuity method has been regulated in Islamic bank regulation in 2012 (PBI No. 14/14/PBI/2012 on transparency and publication of Islamic bank report and SEBI No. 15/26/DPbs/2013 on Implementation on Guideline of Islamic Bank Accounting Standard). However, the accounting standard refers to conventional standards. The recognition also has been approved by Islamic scholars, issue of transparency is concerned with (Faisal, 2015). In fact, FAS 102 on murabaha accounting has not accommodated that practiced. In Indonesia, annuity recognition may be applied since 2007.

In other country like USA, annuity profit recognition is not a problem by Baktiar et al., (2017) as it may not come in appearance. The interesting issues is on the legality of profit in the Islamic perspective which differs from interest rate (Abdullah, 2016). Yanikkaya et al., (2018) found that non-murabaha financing which based on risk may give better performance to Islamic banks. From this, we can find that murabaha has limitation to the contribution of Islamic bank income. In case of annuity method in murabaha, tt can cause the level of liquidity of Islamic banks but it affects lower profitability of Islamic banks especially in the long run (Kamaliyah, 2018). In addition, margin murabaha profit is affected by macroeconomic factors such as LIBOR rate (Chelhi et al., 2018). This why murabaha may charge higher profit to compensate the risk may occur. Khan (2010) also discusseses this issue but not so detailed.

In case of annuity income recognition in murabaha, based on capital asset ratio (CAR) and Capital Adequacy Pricing Model (CAPM), the annuity model income recognition is like usury. Annuity can increase capital and relate to risk free in CAPM. (Amir et al., 2015). This argument may still debatable, but the main issue in annuity income recognition in murabaha is on transparency of seller (Islamic bank) to customers. Murabaha is different from lending based on interest rate as it is cost and mark up margin which has fixed predertmined income (Kholvadia, 2017).

Financial Accounting Standard (FAS) No. 102 on murabaha accounting first issuance was in 2007. The standard covered for all Islamic financial institutions. Then in 2013, the standard was revised to accommodate annuity income recognition. Some interesting topics in FAS No. 102 are:

1. Annuity income recognition The revised standard No. 102 in 2013 regulated the permission of annuity income recognition in murabaha. Annuity income recognition would recognize bigger income recognition in the early installment period. In fact, this practices has been applied before the standard issued.

2. Seller must own the product

3. Seller must inform the Cost of Goods Sold (COGS)

4. Late installment payment can be fined Then in 2019, the standard is proposed to be revised as annuity method should be regulation with some restrictions. This is interesting issue as annuity method has become debatable issue after its issuance.

Research Method

The research based on quantitative method using questionnaire. Most respondents are meeting member of public hearing of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS) No. 102 on murabaha accounting. The revision in on annuity income recognition which has be regulated in 2013. Statements of questionnaires are based on topics in FAS 102. Total respondents are 40 from 80 people who attended in the meeting. Most respondents did not fill the questionairree as they focus on the discussion of the meeting and miss the questionnaire. Most respondents are practitioners such as bankers, insurance employee, government authority and academics.

Data analysis applies discriminant analysis to map related factors to annuity income recognition preferences. Statements from questionnaire would be grouped using this method. Then we would get main group factors which affect annuity recognition murabaha income preference. Crosstab analysis would be added to enrich the analysis.

Analysis

1. Problem with annuity income recognition in murabaha

Before the revised accounting standard issued, there were a public hearing to inform the exposure draft and the committee, the Indonesian Institute of Accountant receive any comments of the exposure draft. Some issues raised on this case are:

1. Transparency of annuity income recognition

2. Customers should know how much income and debt that they have paid for each installment. This would become an issue when buyer has problem to pay the installment scheme. They may be realized that only income that is recognized, not the debt. This may be different if the income recognition uses the flat rate method. Buyer would pay the installment proportionately along each installment period.

3. Take over issue

4. Similar issue would occur if buyer take over their financing to other financial institution. They would have different income with flat method if they are not informed by the Islamic bank. This may be unjust for buyers as they do not know the portion of income recognition for each installment.

Data Analysis

Statistic descriptive would give detail information about respondent’s preferences on statement in the questionnaire Table 1. The highest is on seller must own the product before they can sell it (4.48). Then, it is followed by seller must inform the profit margin on the product (4.3). The next is rebate can be given if the buyer pay the installment earlier (4.28). Surprisingly, the lowest mean is on margin on installment is similar to interest rate (2.55). The higher mean is on installment margin can refer to interest rate basis (2.75). However, the average mean is still above 2.5 which has ranged from 1-5. While, the main issue on the permissibility of installment income recognition can be used annuity basis has average mean of 3.63. This shows that actually respondents may be in doubt whether annuity income recognition is permisibble or otherwise. But if the parameter is based on the rank of average mean, it has the 11th position among 17 statements. From this, if it is compared to others the statement has lower agreement on the aanuity income recognition. Proportional income recognition has higher rank than annuity income recognition.

Table 1 Statistic Descriptive
No Variable N Minimum Maximum Mean
1 Owned 40 2 5 4.48
2 Inform 40 2 5 4.3
8 Payment 40 2 6 4.28
3 Collateral 40 2 5 4.1
12 Prop 40 1 5 4.05
5 Cancel 40 2 5 3.98
7 Aqad 40 1 5 3.88
9 Insurance 40 1 5 3.73
6 Fine 40 1 5 3.7
13 Propbet 40 1 5 3.68
10 Annuity 40 1 5 3.63
11 Inform1 40 1 5 3.5
14 Annuitybet 40 1 5 3.25
15 Marjin 40 1 5 3.25
4 DP 40 1 5 2.95
16 Interest 40 1 5 2.75
17 Similar 40 1 5 2.55
  Valid N (listwise) 40      

The biggest respondents who do not agree about deferred margin income is similar to interest rate is Bachelor degree (not strongly agree = 8 people, not agree = 5 people from 23) (see Table 2). This is similar to Master level graduation with (not strongly agree = 3 people, not agree = 2 people from 10). But not for Phd, 2 out of 4 people are agree that deferred margin income on murabaha is similar to interest rate.

Table 2 Similar * Education Crosstabulation
  Education Total
High school Diploma Bachelor Master Phd  
Similar 1 Count 0 0 8 3 0 11
% within Education 0.0% 0.0% 34.8% 30.0% 0.0% 27.5%
2 Count 0 2 5 2 1 10
% within Education 0.0% 100.0% 21.7% 20.0% 25.0% 25.0%
3 Count 0 0 5 2 1 8
% within Education 0.0% 0.0% 21.7% 20.0% 25.0% 20.0%
4 Count 1 0 2 3 2 8
% within Education 100.0% 0.0% 8.7% 30.0% 50.0% 20.0%
5 Count 0 0 3 0 0 3
% within Education 0.0% 0.0% 13.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.5%
Total Count 1 2 23 10 4 40

In age classification, most age period is not agree if deferred margin murabaha income is similar to interest rate (see Table 3). Especially for age group of 20-30 years and 31-40 years. This means that they are agree that margin murabaha is not similar to interest age in any ages. This is similar to Baktiar et al., (2017) who found that murabaha margin recognition is not an issue.

Table 3 Similar * Age Crosstabulation
  Age Total
<20yr 20-30yr 31-40yr 41-50yr >50yr  
Similar 1 Count 0 4 5 2 0 11  
% within Age .0% 33.3% 33.3% 28.6% .0% 27.5%  
2 Count 0 3 4 1 2 10  
% within Age .0% 25.0% 26.7% 14.3% 40.0% 25.0%  
3 Count 0 2 3 1 2 8  
% within Age .0% 16.7% 20.0% 14.3% 40.0% 20.0%  
4 Count 1 1 3 2 1 8  
% within Age 100.0% 8.3% 20.0% 28.6% 20.0% 20.0%  
5 Count 0 2 0 1 0 3  
% within Age .0% 16.7% .0% 14.3% .0% 7.5%  
Total Count 1 12 15 7 5 40  

We classify respondents based on the application of murabaha scheme. In general, they are agree that deffered murabaha income is not similar to interest rate (see Table 4). But for not using the murabaha scheme, they are agree that deffered murabaha income is similar to interest rate.

Table 4 Similar * Using Crosstabulation
  Using Total
Yes No
Similar 1 Count 5 6 11
% within Using 35.7% 23.1% 27.5%
2 Count 5 5 10
% within Using 35.7% 19.2% 25.0%
3 Count 2 6 8
% within Using 14.3% 23.1% 20.0%
4 Count 1 7 8
% within Using 7.1% 26.9% 20.0%
5 Count 1 2 3
% within Using 7.1% 7.7% 7.5%
Total Count 14 26 40

We also classify respondents based on the application of murabaha scheme with the statement of proportional income recognition of murabaha is better than annuity income recognition. In general, they are agree that proportional income recognition in murabaha is better than annuity income recognition (see Table 5). The most preference occurs on not using the murabaha scheme.

Table 5 Proportional * Using Crosstabulation
  Using Total
Yes No
Propbet 1 Count 1 1 2
% within Using 7.1% 3.8% 5.0%
2 Count 1 5 6
% within Using 7.1% 19.2% 15.0%
3 Count 5 3 8
% within Using 35.7% 11.5% 20.0%
4 Count 5 6 11
% within Using 35.7% 23.1% 27.5%
5 Count 2 11 13
% within Using 14.3% 42.3% 32.5%
Total Count 14 26 40

Compare to the annuity income recognition is better in murabaha scheme, it has lesser support preference compared to the proportional statement (see Table 6). This shows that proportional income recognition has some preference compared to the annuity one.

Table 6 Proportional * Using Crosstabulation
  Using Total
Yes No  
Annuitybet 1 Count 2 1 3
% within Using 14.3% 3.8% 7.5%
2 Count 1 8 9
% within Using 7.1% 30.8% 22.5%
3 Count 6 5 11
% within Using 42.9% 19.2% 27.5%
4 Count 2 7 9
% within Using 14.3% 26.9% 22.5%
5 Count 3 5 8
% within Using 21.4% 19.2% 20.0%
Total Count 14 26 40

From Table 7 and Table 8, we can see that the correlation of similarity interest issue with other variables is not significant. The highest correlation is with proportional income recognition issues (0.211). This shows that the higher the preference of deffered income is similar to interest rate, the higher preference for proportional income recognition is better in murabaha. However, this correlation cannot be concluded.

Table 7 Correlation Variables with Similar Issues
  Similar
Owned Pearson Correlation .153
Sig. (2-tailed) .347
Inform Pearson Correlation -.163
Sig. (2-tailed) .316
Collateral Pearson Correlation .061
Sig. (2-tailed) .707
DP Pearson Correlation .032
Sig. (2-tailed) .843
Cancel Pearson Correlation -.009
Sig. (2-tailed) .958
Fine Pearson Correlation -.040
Sig. (2-tailed) .806
Aqad Pearson Correlation -.099
Sig. (2-tailed) .543
Payment Pearson Correlation -.094
Sig. (2-tailed) .563
Insurance Pearson Correlation -.112
Sig. (2-tailed) .490
Annuity Pearson Correlation -.011
Sig. (2-tailed) .944
Inform1 Pearson Correlation .067
Sig. (2-tailed) .681
Prop Pearson Correlation -.105
Sig. (2-tailed) .520
Propbet Pearson Correlation .211
Sig. (2-tailed) .191
Annuitybet Pearson Correlation -.120
Sig. (2-tailed) .462
Marjin Pearson Correlation -.040
Sig. (2-tailed) .807
Interest Pearson Correlation .184
Sig. (2-tailed) .257
Table 8 KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .700
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 186.670
df 45
Sig. .000

Next analysis is on factor analysis for affected variables to similarity issue. Table 9 shows that the related variables can be used as it is significant and above 0.5 for the test (0.7). This also occurs with anti image matrices correlation which all above 0.5, this means that all variables are qualified for factor analysis. Six variables omitted as the score is below 0.5 (see appendix 2). They are owned, cost, collateral, disclose, prop and propbet. These variables can not be interpreted for further analysis.

Table 9 Anti-image Matrices
  DP Cancel Fine Aqad Payment Insurance Annuity Annuitybet Marjin Interest
Anti-image Covariance DP .680 .044 -.102 .026 -.016 .120 -.105 -.073 .017 .077
Cancel .044 .695 .063 -.037 -.227 -.091 .018 .034 .039 -.136
Fine -.102 .063 .258 -.154 -.006 .051 .061 -.098 .033 -.076
Aqad .026 -.037 -.154 .162 -.040 -.112 -.084 .110 -.042 .046
Payment -.016 -.227 -.006 -.040 .665 -.026 .030 -.152 .144 .019
Insurance .120 -.091 .051 -.112 -.026 .381 -.053 -.074 .006 .030
Annuity -.105 .018 .061 -.084 .030 -.053 .269 -.121 -.042 -.106
Annuitybet -.073 .034 -.098 .110 -.152 -.074 -.121 .337 -.154 .047
Marjin .017 .039 .033 -.042 .144 .006 -.042 -.154 .362 -.174
Interest .077 -.136 -.076 .046 .019 .030 -.106 .047 -.174 .548
Anti-image Correlation DP .695a .063 -.244 .077 -.024 .236 -.245 -.152 .034 .127
Cancel .063 .627a .149 -.111 -.334 -.177 .042 .071 .078 -.221
Fine -.244 .149 .658a -.751 -.013 .161 .233 -.333 .108 -.201
Aqad .077 -.111 -.751 .614a -.121 -.450 -.404 .472 -.172 .153
Payment -.024 -.334 -.013 -.121 .580a -.052 .071 -.321 .294 .032
Insurance .236 -.177 .161 -.450 -.052 .801a -.164 -.207 .015 .065
Annuity -.245 .042 .233 -.404 .071 -.164 .800a -.403 -.133 -.277
Annuitybet -.152 .071 -.333 .472 -.321 -.207 -.403 .626a -.440 .109
Marjin .034 .078 .108 -.172 .294 .015 -.133 -.440 .767a -.391
Interest .127 -.221 -.201 .153 .032 .065 -.277 .109 -.391 .746a
a. Measures of Sampling Adequacy(MSA)

Next analysis is on communalities requirement. The biggest percentage would give the clearer explanation of variable. The highest percentage is marjin and annuity (see Table 10).

Table 10 Communalities
  Initial Extraction
Marjin 1 0.809
Annuity 1 0.791
DP 1 0.751
Aqad 1 0.747
Insurance 1 0.699
Fine 1 0.679
Interest 1 0.668
Annuitybet 1 0.62
Cancel 1 0.616
Payment 1 0.605
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

In Table 11, we can see that from ten variables can be grouped into three factors as the four component has only 0.929 which is below 1.

Table 11 Total Variance Explained
Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 4.135 41.352 41.352 4.135 41.352 41.352 2.914 29.139 29.139
2 1.730 17.300 58.652 1.730 17.300 58.652 2.480 24.799 53.938
3 1.120 11.196 69.849 1.120 11.196 69.849 1.591 15.911 69.849
4 .929 9.290 79.139            
5 .643 6.434 85.573            
6 .509 5.093 90.666            
7 .342 3.421 94.087            
8 .261 2.609 96.696            
9 .241 2.405 99.101            
10 .090 .899 100.000            
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

To categorize which variables can be grouped into component 1, 2, and 3, we can see Table 12 and 13. Table 14 shows that all components are above 0.5, so it can be concluded that it is right and have high correlation. 3 dimension can be seen in figure 1.

Table 12 Component Matrixa
  Component
1 2 3
DP .374 -.422 .658
Cancel .226 .712 -.242
Fine .761 .100 .299
Aqad .790 .341 .083
Payment .294 .606 .389
Insurance .717 .409 -.134
Annuity .876 -.144 -.061
Annuitybet .691 -.358 .118
Marjin .719 -.437 -.317
Interest .616 -.214 -.493
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
a. 3 components extracted.
Table 13 Rotated Component Matrixa
  Component
1 2 3
DP .093 .031 .861
Cancel .023 .635 -.461
Fine .374 .581 .449
Aqad .417 .738 .168
Payment -.222 .735 .126
Insurance .451 .701 -.066
Annuity .746 .372 .310
Annuitybet .595 .139 .496
Marjin .879 -.007 .189
Interest .809 .070 -.095
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 5 iterations.
Table 14 Component Transformation Matrix
Component 1 2 3
dimension0 1 .751 .570 .332
2 -.388 .789 -.476
3 -.534 .229 .814
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. 
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

Figure 1 Component Plot in Rotated Space

DP can be called as risk component. While, cancel, fine, aqad, payment, insurance can be called as scheme component. Annuity, annuitybet, marjin, interest as commitment component.

From Table 15, the correlation commitement variable is positive to similar component, others is negative, but all are insignificant. The bigger response for commitment variable would increase the similarity response of annuity record treatment is similar to usury (riba). The result is also similar to regression method (see Table 16, 17, 18). This is similar to Al-Fasfus (2018) who states that different fiqh interpreting also cause this.

Table 15 Correlations
  Similar Commitment Scheme Risk
Pearson Correlation Similar 1.000 .044 -.115 -.059
Commitment .044 1.000 .000 .000
Scheme -.115 .000 1.000 .000
Risk -.059 .000 .000 1.000
Sig. (1-tailed) Similar 0.00 .393 .240 .358
Commitment .393 0.00 .500 .500
Scheme .240 .500 0.00 .500
Risk .358 .500 .500 0.00
N Similar 40 40 40 40
Commitment 40 40 40 40
Scheme 40 40 40 40
Risk 40 40 40 40
Table 16 Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .137a .019 -.063 1.34026
a. Predictors: (Constant), Commitment, Scheme, Risk
Table 17 ANOVAb
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 1.233 3 .411 .229 .876a
Residual 64.667 36 1.796    
Total 65.900 39      
a. Predictors: (Constant), Risk, Scheme, Commitment
b. Dependent Variable: Similar
Table 18 Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 2.550 .212   12.033 .000    
Commitment .057 .215 .044 .268 .790 1.000 1.000
Scheme -.150 .215 -.115 -.697 .490 1.000 1.000
Risk -.077 .215 -.059 -.359 .722 1.000 1.000
a. Dependent Variable: Similar

Conclusion

The research is interesting as annuity method recognition murabaha standard was revised in Indonesia. Discussion on this case could be important input for other country which still adopt similar method. Annuity method recognition is permissible since 2013 until 2020, then it has restriction.

The result shows that bachelor degree and above stated that deferred margin murabaha is similar to interest rate, this is similar to respondents who do not use murabaha scheme. While, respondents who use murabaha would prefer proportional method for murabaha scheme compared to annuity method.

For loading factor analysis, three main variable can be grouped (a) annuity permisiblity, preference of annuity method, bigger margin at the early payment, interest reference (b) issue of cancel, fine for late payment, fine information, discount on early settlement and insurance (c) down payment. All variables are insignificant, only first variable is posisitve, others are negarive correlation to the similar variable. Further research can be done with respondents who use murabaha contract so the impact of annuity method can be elaborate in detail. In addition, other issues such as take over or early settlement could be interesting topic.

References

Abdullah, A. (2016). Examining US approvals of Islamic financing products and the Islamic theory of lawful profit. International Journal of Islamic and Middle Eastern Finance and Management, 9(4), 532–550. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMEFM-09-2015-0107

Al-Fasfus, F. (2018). Reasons of the Difference of Murabaha Accounting Standards in Islamic Banks. International Journal of Economics and Finance, 11(1), 28–36. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijef.v11n1p28

Al-Fijawi, M.F.A., & Yunus, S.M. (2019). Modern applications of profit-sale (Bayʿ murābaḥah) from a maqāṣid sharīʿah perspective. Al-Shajarah, 24(1), 49–66.

Amir, V., Hatimah, H., Khalisah, N., & Purboyanti, R.T. (2015). A criticism of anuities in murabahah transaction: allowing riba throught fatwa? (a case study of sharia banking in Indonesia). Proceeding - Kuala Lumpur International Business, Economics, and Law Conference 6, 1, 19–27.

Baktiar, A., Ode, L., & Adam, B. (2017). Murabahah Implementation in Islamic Bank ( Study at Bank Muamalat Kendari Branch ) Samdin Hasan Aedy. IOSR Journal of Economics and Finance, 8(5), 13–27. https://doi.org/10.9790/5933-0805011327

Chelhi, K., Hachloufi, M.E., Elfar, M., Eddaoui, A., & Marzak. (2018). Data Mining Approach for Modeling Murabaha Return Risk Taking into Account Economic Factors. Colloquium in Information Science and Technology, CIST, 167–171. https://doi.org/10.1109/CIST.2018.8596596

Faisal, M. (2015). Metode anuitas dan proporsional murabahah sebagai bentuk transparansi dan publikasi laporan bank. Mimbar Hukum, 26(3), 382–394. https://doi.org/10.22146/jmh.16032

Kamaliyah, F. (2018). The influence of margin murabaha recognition method on Islamic banking sustainability. Economics and Accounting Journal, 1(3), 206–214. https://doi.org/10.32493/eaj.v1i3.y2018.p206-214

Kholvadia, F. (2017). Islamic banking in South Africa form over substance? Meditari Accountancy Research, 25(1), 68–81. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-02-2016-0030

Yanikkaya, H., Gümüş, N., & Pabuçcu, Y.U. (2018). How profitability differs between conventional and Islamic banks: A dynamic panel data approach. Pacific Basin Finance Journal, 48, 99–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfin.2018.01.006

Appendix

Appendix 1 List of Statement Questionnaire
No Statement Code
1 Seller must own goods when murabaha contract conducted Owned
2 Seller must inform cost of good sold (COGS) to buyer Inform
3 Buyer must provide collateral untuk installments purchase Collateral
4 Down payment can be owned by seller if buyer cancel the transaction DP
5 In murabaha purchase order, buyer can cancel the order and pay the real cost incurred Cancel
6 If buyer pay late the installment so it can charge fine Fine
7 The amount of fine charged because of late payment must be stated in the transaction Aqad
8 Discount can be given for early settlement Payment
9 Each murabaha must be covered by Islamic insurance Insurance
10 Murabaha income recognition can be treated by annuity method Annuity
11 Murabaha income recognition can be conducted if buyer informed the amount of income recognition Inform1
12 Murabaha income recognition can be by proportional method Prop
13 Proportional income method is better than annuity method Propbet
14 Annuity income recognition method is better than proportional method Annuitybet
15 Murabaha margin can be big at the beginning of the contract Marjin
16 Murabaha margin can refer to interest rate Interest
17 Murabaha margin is similar to interest rate Similar
Appendix 2 Anti-Image Matrices
  DP Cancel Fine Aqad Payment Insurance Annuity Annuitybet Marjin Interest
Anti-image Covariance DP .680 .044 -.102 .026 -.016 .120 -.105 -.073 .017 .077
Cancel .044 .695 .063 -.037 -.227 -.091 .018 .034 .039 -.136
Fine -.102 .063 .258 -.154 -.006 .051 .061 -.098 .033 -.076
Aqad .026 -.037 -.154 .162 -.040 -.112 -.084 .110 -.042 .046
Payment -.016 -.227 -.006 -.040 .665 -.026 .030 -.152 .144 .019
Insurance .120 -.091 .051 -.112 -.026 .381 -.053 -.074 .006 .030
Annuity -.105 .018 .061 -.084 .030 -.053 .269 -.121 -.042 -.106
Annuitybet -.073 .034 -.098 .110 -.152 -.074 -.121 .337 -.154 .047
Marjin .017 .039 .033 -.042 .144 .006 -.042 -.154 .362 -.174
Interest .077 -.136 -.076 .046 .019 .030 -.106 .047 -.174 .548
Anti-image Correlation DP .695a .063 -.244 .077 -.024 .236 -.245 -.152 .034 .127
Cancel .063 .627a .149 -.111 -.334 -.177 .042 .071 .078 -.221
Fine -.244 .149 .658a -.751 -.013 .161 .233 -.333 .108 -.201
Aqad .077 -.111 -.751 .614a -.121 -.450 -.404 .472 -.172 .153
Payment -.024 -.334 -.013 -.121 .580a -.052 .071 -.321 .294 .032
Insurance .236 -.177 .161 -.450 -.052 .801a -.164 -.207 .015 .065
Annuity -.245 .042 .233 -.404 .071 -.164 .800a -.403 -.133 -.277
Annuitybet -.152 .071 -.333 .472 -.321 -.207 -.403 .626a -.440 .109
Marjin .034 .078 .108 -.172 .294 .015 -.133 -.440 .767a -.391
Interest .127 -.221 -.201 .153 .032 .065 -.277 .109 -.391 .746a
a. Measures of Sampling Adequacy(MSA)
Get the App