IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/jda/journl/vol.53year2019issue2pp146-163.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Liquidity Risk in the Mena Region Banking Sector: Does Bank Type Make a Difference?

Author

Listed:
  • Suzanna El-Massah
  • Shereen Mostafa Bacheer
  • Ola Al Sayed

    (Cairo University, Egypt Zayed University, United Arab Emirates
    Cairo University, Egypt Zayed University, United Arab Emirates
    Cairo University, Egypt Sultan Qaboos University, Oman)

Abstract

Liquidity risk is a challenge facing banks in their efforts to maintain financial stability. Islamic banks are under added pressure with the constraint of having to adhere to Sharia'h principles. The goal of this paper is to investigate the determinants of liquidity risk in Islamic and conventional banks in the Middle East North Africa (MENA) region. The generalized, least squares model is utilized to estimate the determinants of liquidity risk in 257 banks (90 Islamic and 167 Conventional) over the period 2009–2016, in which the struggles of both types of banks to mitigate the impacts of the global financial crisis were observed. A dummy variable representing the bank type is included to allow for comparison between liquidity risk determinants in both types of banks. The model investigated the impact of four bank specific variables and a macroeconomic one on bank liquidity represented by five alterative ratios. The results show a positive effect of bank size on liquidity risk of all sample banks, thus demonstrating that both bank types follow the "too big to fail" rule. Capital adequacy has a positive impact on the liquidity risk of all sample banks irrespective of bank type. Return on assets has no significant effect while credit risk has a negative impact on liquidity risk of both bank types. That is, higher credit risk encourages a more conservative liquidity management policy in both bank types, despite the theoretical fact that Islamic banks have higher credit risk due to the "risk sharing principle". Similarly, real per capita GDP has a positive impact on liquidity risk of conventional and Islamic banks, reflecting their procyclical lending behaviour. Evidently, bank type in the MENA region does not affect the determinants of a bank's liquidity risk; Islamic and conventional banks use different terms for their practices, but in reality mobilize funds the same way. This is due to the fact that both banks operate under the same micro- and macroeconomic conditions and are both influenced by the same domestic and international liquidity regulations. Introducing more efficient financial products and having a unified regulatory and supervisory framework can offer Islamic banks better opportunities.

Suggested Citation

  • Suzanna El-Massah & Shereen Mostafa Bacheer & Ola Al Sayed, 2019. "Liquidity Risk in the Mena Region Banking Sector: Does Bank Type Make a Difference?," Journal of Developing Areas, Tennessee State University, College of Business, vol. 53(1), pages 147-163, January-M.
  • Handle: RePEc:jda:journl:vol.53:year:2019:issue2:pp:146-163
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://muse.jhu.edu/article/702369/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Singh, Amit & Jenamani, Mamata & Thakkar, Jitesh J. & Rana, Nripendra P., 2021. "Propagation of online consumer perceived negativity: Quantifying the effect of supply chain underperformance on passenger car sales," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 102-114.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Liquidity Risk; Liquidity Ratio; Islamic Banks; MENA Region; Islamic Finance; Bank Size; Capital Adequacy; ROAA; Credit Risk;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • G11 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Portfolio Choice; Investment Decisions
    • G20 - Financial Economics - - Financial Institutions and Services - - - General
    • G21 - Financial Economics - - Financial Institutions and Services - - - Banks; Other Depository Institutions; Micro Finance Institutions; Mortgages
    • G32 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Financing Policy; Financial Risk and Risk Management; Capital and Ownership Structure; Value of Firms; Goodwill
    • G33 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Bankruptcy; Liquidation
    • Z1 - Other Special Topics - - Cultural Economics

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:jda:journl:vol.53:year:2019:issue2:pp:146-163. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Abu N.M. Wahid (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cbtnsus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.