Empirical comparison of Shariah-compliant vs conventional mutual fund performance

Abstract

PurposeThis paper investigates the performance of locally focused equity mutual funds (LFEFs) in Saudi Arabia as compared with the performance of benchmark funds. More specifically, the focal question pertains to whether Shariah-compliant mutual funds (SMFs) and conventional mutual funds (CMFs) outperform their respective benchmarks. Undertaken in the context of Saudi Arabia's economic planning under Vision 2030, the study offers a foundation for determining whether and the extent to which Shariah-compliant investment strategies are competitive—a matter of considerable importance across 57 Muslim countries.Design/methodology/approachThe Carhart four-factor model is applied to a sample of 39 Saudi Arabian mutual funds (MFs) using the monthly net asset value (NAV) per share. The sample period, April 2007 to October 2016, is considered in its entirety and as three sub-periods, i.e. low-, medium- and high-volatility.FindingsThe results show that the locally focused equity mutual funds (LFEFs) significantly outperformed their benchmark, i.e. the Tadawul All Share Index (TASI), during the full sample period and the low-volatility period. According to the empirical comparison, the CMFs also outperformed their TASI benchmark for the full sample period and the low-volatility period. However, the SMFs neither outperformed nor underperformed their S&P Saudi Arabia Domestic Shariah Index benchmark. That is, for each of the SMFs included in the sample, the Jensen's alpha was insignificant for both the full sample and all three volatility sub-periods.Research limitations/implicationsIn this paper, the four-factor model is used in the context of a single country. The results, therefore, may not be generalizable to the multi-country level in the Gulf Council Cooperation (GCC) region given differences between the member countries in terms of financial structure and economic focus.Practical implicationsThe results reported constitute a useful guide for policymakers and faith-based-sensitive investors concerned about the Shariah compliancy of their portfolios given that there is very little difference between how CMFs and SMFs performed in the focal period. This research can be extended to include other Islamic countries in the GCC region as a basis for identifying optimal investment vehicles, i.e. those most likely to produce high returns at low risk.Originality/valueThe work reported in this paper is original and constitutes a valuable asset for ethnoreligious-sensitive investors. The research has not been published in any capacity and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere.

Mutual funds marketing: a hybrid review and framework development

“…(2022) call for studies on the impact of mutual funds ratings on investment decisions. Furthermore, Al Rahahleh and Bhatti (2022) emphasize the need for future studies to study the performance of different mutual funds in different financial and economic setups. Finally, Otero-González and Durán-Santomil (2021) call for studies measuring the impact of beyond-performance ratings, such as stewardship grades, sustainability ratings, and quantitative ratings, on mutual funds' performance.Cluster 5: Cognitive biases, information processing errors and investment behavior…”

Selectivity and Market-Timing Performance of Mutual Funds Using Human-Capital Augmented Various Asset-Pricing Models: Evidence from Pakistan

“…Al Rahahleh and Bhatti (2022) comparatively examined e locally focused equity mutual funds (LFEFs) and benchmark mutual funds of Saudi Arabia. They examined 39 Saudi funds using monthly data for 2007-2016.…”

Bank stock valuation theories: do they explain prices based on theories?

“…1. COVID-19, global financial crises (GFC), Asian Financial crises (AFC) and their interconnectedness, for detail discussions, refer to Iqbal et al. (2021) and Al-Rahahleh and Bhatti (2022) and references therein.…”

“…Empirical evidence of income-based valuation techniques on the experience of financial institutions can be found in studies by Schoon (2005), Kumar (2020) and Motaze (2022). Likewise, there is evidence of few studies on the relative-type methods of equity valuations for financial firms (Nissim, 2013; Al-Rahahleh and Bhatti, 2022). Second, we use panel data to apply series of advanced testing to improve the forecasting precision and validation of the models in addressing the existing methodological gaps.…”