We compare, using data envelopment analysis (DEA) and meta-frontier analysis (MFA), the performance of Islamic and conventional banks during the period [2004][2005][2006][2007][2008][2009]. The use of nonparametric MFA is new to the Islamic banking context. Our DEA finds no significant difference in mean efficiency between conventional and Islamic banks when efficiency is measured relative to a common frontier. The MFA however, reveals some fundamental differences between the two bank types. In particular, the modus operandi in Islamic banking appears to be less efficient on average than the conventional one. Managers of Islamic banks, however, make up for this as mean efficiency in Islamic banks is higher than in conventional banks when efficiency is measured relative to their own bank type frontier. A second-stage analysis shows that differences between the two banking systems remain even after banking environment and bank-level characteristics have been taken into account. These findings are relevant to both policy-makers and regulators. In particular, Islamic banks should explore the benefits of moving to a more standardized system of banking, while the underperformance of conventional bank managers could be examined in the context of the on-going remuneration culture.
By comparing the failure risk for both bank types, we find that Islamic banks have a significantly lower risk of failure than that of their conventional peers. This lower risk is based both unconditionally and conditionally on bank-specific (microeconomic) variables as well as macroeconomic and market structure variables. Our findings indicate that the design and implementation of early warning systems for bank failure should recognize the distinct risk profiles of the two bank types.
This study examines the impact of board busyness (i.e., multiple directorships of outside board members) on the performance and financial stability of banks in a dual banking system (Islamic and conventional). We consider banks from 14 countries for the period 2010-2015. The results provide strong evidence that conventional banks with busy boards exhibit high bank performance (i.e., high profitability and low cost to income) and greater financial stability (i.e., low insolvency risk, credit risk, liquidity risk, asset risk, and operational risk). These findings are in line with the reputation hypothesis, which asserts that the expertise and connections of busy outside directors lead to better decision making, more efficient resource utilisation and more effective monitoring. In contrast, Islamic banks' performance and stability are adversely affected by the presence of busy board members, with Islamic banks show low profitability, high cost to income and high risk-taking. This result might be attributed to the complex governance structure of Islamic banks and the uniqueness of their financial products, which require additional effective monitoring.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.