马来西亚伊斯兰银行与传统银行的信贷风险差异

IF 0.8 Q3 ECONOMICS
E. H. Koh, Hasanul Banna, Lee Youmkyung
{"title":"马来西亚伊斯兰银行与传统银行的信贷风险差异","authors":"E. H. Koh, Hasanul Banna, Lee Youmkyung","doi":"10.1355/ae39-1b","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:Despite the renewed interest post-2008, experts remain divided on whether Islamic banks (IBs) are riskier than conventional banks (CBs). Hence, we aim to study their credit risk differential more closely. Extant studies have analysed IBs collectively as a group in multicountry settings. We differ by studying one country, Malaysia, over 2006–19. We chose Malaysia because of its established dual banking system and global leadership in Islamic banking. We studied two credit risk aspects (the bank's bankruptcy risk and its customers' default risk) in a two-phased approach (a t-test and a regression). We also tested the robustness of our findings through a feasible generalized least squares linear model. We find that IBs are generally riskier but the customer default risk differential is insignificant. Moreover, the IB-CB risk differential has narrowed in recent years. Our findings present three implications. First, we studied this phenomenon in a single country so as to remove potential noise from cross-country differences. We also reaffirmed our regression findings through a robustness test. Such efforts help enhance the accuracy of our findings. Second, practitioners may note the risk differential reasons and opportunities arising from the narrowing gap. Third, policymakers may consider increasing the market liquidity and risk management options for IBs. Future research may consider studying the recent narrowing risk gap and whether the standalone IBs differ from those which are part of a CB group.","PeriodicalId":43712,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Southeast Asian Economies","volume":"39 1","pages":"21 - 41"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Credit Risk Differential between Islamic and Conventional Banks in Malaysia\",\"authors\":\"E. H. Koh, Hasanul Banna, Lee Youmkyung\",\"doi\":\"10.1355/ae39-1b\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract:Despite the renewed interest post-2008, experts remain divided on whether Islamic banks (IBs) are riskier than conventional banks (CBs). Hence, we aim to study their credit risk differential more closely. Extant studies have analysed IBs collectively as a group in multicountry settings. We differ by studying one country, Malaysia, over 2006–19. We chose Malaysia because of its established dual banking system and global leadership in Islamic banking. We studied two credit risk aspects (the bank's bankruptcy risk and its customers' default risk) in a two-phased approach (a t-test and a regression). We also tested the robustness of our findings through a feasible generalized least squares linear model. We find that IBs are generally riskier but the customer default risk differential is insignificant. Moreover, the IB-CB risk differential has narrowed in recent years. Our findings present three implications. First, we studied this phenomenon in a single country so as to remove potential noise from cross-country differences. We also reaffirmed our regression findings through a robustness test. Such efforts help enhance the accuracy of our findings. Second, practitioners may note the risk differential reasons and opportunities arising from the narrowing gap. Third, policymakers may consider increasing the market liquidity and risk management options for IBs. Future research may consider studying the recent narrowing risk gap and whether the standalone IBs differ from those which are part of a CB group.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43712,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Southeast Asian Economies\",\"volume\":\"39 1\",\"pages\":\"21 - 41\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Southeast Asian Economies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1355/ae39-1b\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Southeast Asian Economies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1355/ae39-1b","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

摘要:尽管2008年后人们对伊斯兰银行的兴趣重燃,但专家们在伊斯兰银行是否比传统银行风险更大的问题上仍存在分歧。因此,我们的目标是更密切地研究它们的信用风险差异。现有的研究在多国背景下将ib作为一个群体进行了分析。我们的不同之处在于研究了2006-19年间的一个国家——马来西亚。我们之所以选择马来西亚,是因为它建立了双重银行体系,并且在伊斯兰银行领域处于全球领先地位。我们采用两阶段方法(t检验和回归)研究了两个信用风险方面(银行破产风险和客户违约风险)。我们还通过可行的广义最小二乘线性模型测试了我们的发现的稳健性。我们发现,IBs通常风险更高,但客户违约风险差异不显著。此外,近年来,商业银行与商业银行之间的风险差异已经缩小。我们的发现有三个含义。首先,我们在单个国家研究这一现象,以消除跨国差异带来的潜在噪音。我们还通过稳健性检验重申了我们的回归发现。这些努力有助于提高我们研究结果的准确性。其次,从业者可能会注意到风险差异的原因和缩小差距所带来的机会。第三,政策制定者可以考虑增加ibb的市场流动性和风险管理选项。未来的研究可能会考虑研究最近缩小的风险差距,以及独立的ib是否与CB组的一部分不同。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Credit Risk Differential between Islamic and Conventional Banks in Malaysia
Abstract:Despite the renewed interest post-2008, experts remain divided on whether Islamic banks (IBs) are riskier than conventional banks (CBs). Hence, we aim to study their credit risk differential more closely. Extant studies have analysed IBs collectively as a group in multicountry settings. We differ by studying one country, Malaysia, over 2006–19. We chose Malaysia because of its established dual banking system and global leadership in Islamic banking. We studied two credit risk aspects (the bank's bankruptcy risk and its customers' default risk) in a two-phased approach (a t-test and a regression). We also tested the robustness of our findings through a feasible generalized least squares linear model. We find that IBs are generally riskier but the customer default risk differential is insignificant. Moreover, the IB-CB risk differential has narrowed in recent years. Our findings present three implications. First, we studied this phenomenon in a single country so as to remove potential noise from cross-country differences. We also reaffirmed our regression findings through a robustness test. Such efforts help enhance the accuracy of our findings. Second, practitioners may note the risk differential reasons and opportunities arising from the narrowing gap. Third, policymakers may consider increasing the market liquidity and risk management options for IBs. Future research may consider studying the recent narrowing risk gap and whether the standalone IBs differ from those which are part of a CB group.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Journal of Southeast Asian Economies (JSEAE) is a peer-reviewed multi-disciplinary journal focusing on economic issues in Southeast Asia. JSEAE features articles based on original research, research notes, policy notes, review articles and book reviews, and welcomes submissions of conceptual, theoretical and empirical articles preferably with substantive policy discussions. Original research articles and research notes can be country studies or cross-country comparative studies. For quantitative-oriented articles, authors should strive to ensure that their work is accessible to non-specialists. Submitted manuscripts undergo a rigorous peer-review process – two reviewers for original research articles and one reviewer for research notes and policy notes. The journal is published three times a year: April, August and December.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信