Search results

The aim of this study is to conduct a comparative analysis between Islamic and conventional banks in terms of whether Islamic banks was more or less resilient/risky than conventional counterparts to the pandemic shock. It also examines the role of capital in improving the performance and stability within the two banking systems.

This study uses 82 banks from MENA (Middle East and North Africa) region for periods across 2011–2020, and employs a dynamic panel data approach to examine the resilience within both banking systems during the Covid-19 pandemic.

The results show that the Covid-19 pandemic has a negative impact on conventional banks' stability. However, Islamic banks performed better and were less risky than conventional ones. Banks with high-quality capital are more effective at controlling their risks and improving their performance during the pandemic.

The results offer important financial observations and policy implications to many stakeholders engaging with banks. Actually, the findings of this study facilitate to the stakeholders and bankers to have an alluded picture about determinants of risk and performance. The results can be used by bankers’ policy decision-makers to improve and enhance their consideration for risk management, taking into consideration the type of banking systems.

Compared to the various studies on the stability of Islamic and conventional banks, researchers have not sufficiently addressed the effect of the Covid-19 pandemic on risk and performance. Moreover, none of these studies has examined if Islamic banks was more or less resilient/risky than conventional counterparts to the pandemic shock. This leads the authors to identify the similarities and differences between two types of banks in the MENA region in a pandemic shock context.

This paper aims to identify and analyze the similarities and differences of the liquidity risk determinants within conventional and Islamic banks.

This study uses a dynamic panel data approach to examine the relationship between liquidity risk and a set of bank-specific and macroeconomic factors during 2005–2015, by selecting 27 Islamic banks and 49 conventional ones operating in the MENA region. More specifically, the dynamic two-step generalized method of moment estimator technique introduced by Arellano and Bond (1991) is applied.

The results suggest that the set of bank-specific variables influences the liquidity risk of both banking systems, while macroeconomic factors determine the liquidity risk of conventional banks. Islamic banks are not affected by macroeconomic determinants.

The research facilitates to the academicians, practitioners and bankers to have an alluded picture about liquidity risk determinants and their management. The findings can be used by bankers’ policy decision-makers to improve and enhance their consideration for liquidity risk management in both banking systems. Indeed, the study makes them aware to manage liquidity risk differently between conventional and Islamic banks, as the results reveal different liquidity risk determinants.

Compared to the abundant studies on the determinants of credit risk, researchers have not sufficiently addressed the factors influencing liquidity risk. Moreover, none of these few research studies has discussed and compared liquidity risk determinants within both banking systems operating in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. This leads us to identify the similarities and differences between conventional and Islamic banks in the MENA region in respect of systematic and unsystematic determinants of the liquidity risk. The value is attributed to the increasing differentiation between Islamic and conventional banks. Islamic banks are characterized with a different liquidity structure distinguishing them from their conventional counterparts.