IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eme/ijoemp/ijoem-05-2020-0565.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Empirical comparison ofShariah-compliant vs conventional mutual fund performance

Author

Listed:
  • Naseem Al Rahahleh
  • M. Ishaq Bhatti

Abstract

Purpose - This paper investigates the performance of locally focused equity mutual funds (LFEFs) in Saudi Arabia as compared with the performance of benchmark funds. More specifically, the focal question pertains to whetherShariah-compliant mutual funds (SMFs) and conventional mutual funds (CMFs) outperform their respective benchmarks. Undertaken in the context of Saudi Arabia's economic planning under Vision 2030, the study offers a foundation for determining whether and the extent to whichShariah-compliant investment strategies are competitive—a matter of considerable importance across 57 Muslim countries. Design/methodology/approach - The Carhart four-factor model is applied to a sample of 39 Saudi Arabian mutual funds (MFs) using the monthly net asset value (NAV) per share. The sample period, April 2007 to October 2016, is considered in its entirety and as three sub-periods, i.e. low-, medium- and high-volatility. Findings - The results show that the locally focused equity mutual funds (LFEFs) significantly outperformed their benchmark, i.e. the Tadawul All Share Index (TASI), during the full sample period and the low-volatility period. According to the empirical comparison, the CMFs also outperformed their TASI benchmark for the full sample period and the low-volatility period. However, the SMFs neither outperformed nor underperformed their S&P Saudi Arabia Domestic Shariah Index benchmark. That is, for each of the SMFs included in the sample, the Jensen's alpha was insignificant for both the full sample and all three volatility sub-periods. Research limitations/implications - In this paper, the four-factor model is used in the context of a single country. The results, therefore, may not be generalizable to the multi-country level in the Gulf Council Cooperation (GCC) region given differences between the member countries in terms of financial structure and economic focus. Practical implications - The results reported constitute a useful guide for policymakers and faith-based-sensitive investors concerned about the Shariah compliancy of their portfolios given that there is very little difference between how CMFs and SMFs performed in the focal period. This research can be extended to include other Islamic countries in the GCC region as a basis for identifying optimal investment vehicles, i.e. those most likely to produce high returns at low risk. Originality/value - The work reported in this paper is original and constitutes a valuable asset for ethnoreligious-sensitive investors. The research has not been published in any capacity and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere.

Suggested Citation

  • Naseem Al Rahahleh & M. Ishaq Bhatti, 2022. "Empirical comparison ofShariah-compliant vs conventional mutual fund performance," International Journal of Emerging Markets, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 18(10), pages 4504-4523, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:eme:ijoemp:ijoem-05-2020-0565
    DOI: 10.1108/IJOEM-05-2020-0565
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/IJOEM-05-2020-0565/full/html?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/IJOEM-05-2020-0565/full/pdf?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1108/IJOEM-05-2020-0565?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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:eme:ijoemp:ijoem-05-2020-0565. 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: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.