IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Investor’s choice of Shariah compliant ‘replicas’ and original Islamic instruments

Listed author(s):
  • Azmat, Saad
  • Jalil, Muhammad Naiman
  • Skully, Michael
  • Brown, Kym

This paper offers a behavioral perspective on why Islamic capital markets are dominated by those financial instruments that almost replicate conventional financial products (i.e. Islamic debt bonds and Islamic equities). In contrast, the original Islamic instruments involving risk and return sharing (Musharakah) have failed to emerge. This paper argues that before the replicas, an investor's choice was simply between Islamic and non-Islamic instruments. Along with risk and return, compliance with Islamic principles or Shariah was an integral part of investor utility. As Shariah standards came to give legitimacy to other financial structures, the investors could then choose between various Islamic replicas and the original Islamic instruments. We argue that once the investor's intrinsic need for Shariah compliance is fulfilled, an instrument's risk-return features would become more important. So for loss averse investors with shorter evaluation periods, the loss sharing feature of the Islamic risk and return instruments (Musharkah) makes them less attractive than Islamic debt bonds. For longer evaluation periods, Islamic equities are also shown to outperform the risk and return (Musharakah) instruments. Using the S&P Islamic bond index for bond data and the Dow Jones Islamic Market World Index for Islamic equities, we confirm these views about investor utility by way of both loss aversion and habit based consumption models. The findings suggest that Islamic debt bonds and Islamic equities have been allowed to jointly crowd out the original Islamic risk and return (Musharakah) instruments.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268116301536
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization.

Volume (Year): 132 (2016)
Issue (Month): S ()
Pages: 4-22

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:eee:jeborg:v:132:y:2016:i:s:p:4-22
DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2016.07.018
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jebo

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as
in new window


  1. Mehra, Rajnish & Prescott, Edward C., 1985. "The equity premium: A puzzle," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 145-161, March.
  2. Stewart C. Myers & Nicholas S. Majluf, 1984. "Corporate Financing and Investment Decisions When Firms Have InformationThat Investors Do Not Have," NBER Working Papers 1396, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  3. Fielding, David & Stracca, Livio, 2007. "Myopic loss aversion, disappointment aversion, and the equity premium puzzle," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 250-268, October.
  4. Myers, Stewart C. & Majluf, Nicholas S., 1984. "Corporate financing and investment decisions when firms have information that investors do not have," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(2), pages 187-221, June.
  5. Richard H. Thaler & Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman & Alan Schwartz, 1997. "The Effect of Myopia and Loss Aversion on Risk Taking: An Experimental Test," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 112(2), pages 647-661.
  6. Shlomo Benartzi & Richard H. Thaler, 1995. "Myopic Loss Aversion and the Equity Premium Puzzle," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 110(1), pages 73-92.
  7. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
  8. John Y. Campbell & John Cochrane, 1999. "Force of Habit: A Consumption-Based Explanation of Aggregate Stock Market Behavior," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 107(2), pages 205-251, April.
  9. Nicholas Barberis & Ming Huang & Richard H. Thaler, 2006. "Individual Preferences, Monetary Gambles, and Stock Market Participation: A Case for Narrow Framing," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(4), pages 1069-1090, September.
  10. John Y. Campbell & John H. Cochrane, 1994. "By Force of Habit: A Consumption-Based Explanation of Aggregate Stock Market Behavior," CRSP working papers 412, Center for Research in Security Prices, Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago.
  11. Adrien Verdelhan, 2010. "A Habit-Based Explanation of the Exchange Rate Risk Premium," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 65(1), pages 123-146, 02.
  12. Dennis E. Smallwood & John Conlisk, 1979. "Product Quality in Markets Where Consumers are Imperfectly Informed," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 93(1), pages 1-23.
  13. Esther-Mirjam Sent, 2004. "Behavioral Economics: How Psychology Made Its (Limited) Way Back Into Economics," History of Political Economy, Duke University Press, vol. 36(4), pages 735-760, Winter.
  14. Myers, Stewart C. & Majluf, Nicolás S., 1945-, 1984. "Corporate financing and investment decisions when firms have information that investors do not have," Working papers 1523-84., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
  15. Chong, Beng Soon & Liu, Ming-Hua, 2009. "Islamic banking: Interest-free or interest-based?," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 125-144, January.
  16. Mayhew, Brian W. & Vitalis, Adam, 2014. "Myopic loss aversion and market experience," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 113-125.
  17. Stewart C. Myers, 2001. "Capital Structure," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 15(2), pages 81-102, Spring.
  18. Nicholas Barberis & Ming Huang & Tano Santos, 2001. "Prospect Theory and Asset Prices," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 116(1), pages 1-53.
  19. Khan, Feisal, 2010. "How 'Islamic' is Islamic Banking?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 76(3), pages 805-820, December.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jeborg:v:132:y:2016:i:s:p:4-22. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)

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.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.