Search results

Purpose – The aim of this chapter is to analyse consequences of the consideration of ethical principles in the financial decisions process of banks. More specifically, we study how the consideration of shariah principles could affect the capital structure of Islamic banks (IBs).

Design/methodology/approach – First, we apply the classical concepts and theories of capital structure (trade-off theory, pecking order theory, agency theory) in the specific context of IBs. Then, through a literature review, we propose some expected determinants of the capital structure of IBs.

Findings – Our theoretical analysis reveals that the trade-off theory is more suitable for IBs. Moreover, in Islamic institutions, information asymmetry and agency conflicts should be less important than in their conventional counterparts. However, our analysis does not allow us to conclude on the optimal combination of equity and non-equity financing.

Research limitations – In this study, we have not constructed a new capital structure theory specific to IBs but we apply the classical concepts and theories (information asymmetry, agency theory, trade-off theory, pecking order theory) to the Islamic context.

Originality/value – The study contributes to both the capital structure and the Islamic finance literature. There are few studies comparing IBs to conventional banks’ capital structure. Our chapter is the first, to our knowledge, which propose to theoretically explain the observed difference between these two categories of banks.

The income is attributed to PSIA^U holders after setting aside the reserves (PER and IRR) and deducting the bank's share of income called mudarib share.

Since the recent global financial crisis began in 2008–2009, there has been strong decline in financial markets and investment, huge losses and bankruptcies that have led to a major financial downturn, and a significant economic recession for most developed and emerging economies. Some economists and financial analysts now consider this crisis to be more harmful in some ways than the Great Depression of 1929. Those economists and analysts point to a number of technical issues and limitations associated with the present financial systems, monetary institution rules, accounting and rating formulas, and investment strategies and choices. To try to overcome the financial downturn and, at the same time, to protect the banking systems and financial markets and to reassure investors, central banks have attempted various solutions, governments have introduced new plans (e.g., the Paulson plan), policymakers have included these topic in their political programs, and several conferences and political summits have been organized to discuss the issues. There have been two prevailing lines of thought. According to one line of thought, the extreme risk associated with speculation in sophisticated financial products, the nature of the credit-banking economic system, the gap between real and financial economies, and the strategic errors of monetary institutions constitute the main sources of the financial crisis.¹ On the other hand, it is now argued that this trend needs to be altered. According to that view, monetary institutions, banking and trading systems, rating agencies, and asset pricing modeling need to be reassessed (Barnett, 2012).

Since Thomas Kuhn (1962), a historian of science who gave ‘paradigm’ its contemporary meaning, the term ‘paradigm’ has been widely used in science and social sciences to refer to a theoretical framework or thought pattern in any given discipline, or broadly, a set of experiences, beliefs and values that affect individual perceptions of a reality and their subsequent reactions. A dominant paradigm is the widely held system of thought in a society at a particular period of time. For Kuhn, a dominant paradigm can be changed and replaced by a new one, which often occurs in a revolutionary manner in science. In social sciences, ‘paradigm shift’ implies the changing ways of understanding and organising a social reality.