IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eme/jiabrp/jiabr-08-2018-0121.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk sharing vs risk shifting: a comparative study of Islamic banks

Author

Listed:
  • Sunil Khandelwal
  • Khaled Aljifri

Abstract

Purpose - This study aims to compare the use of risk-sharing and risk-shifting contracts (RSFCs) in Islamic banks using a triple grouping of conservative, moderate and liberal Islamic banks based on the Khaled Khandelwal (KK) model. Six fundamental Islamic contracts are used in this study, namely, Mushãrakah, Mudãrabah, Murãbaha, Salam, Ijãrah, Istisnã. Mushãrakah and Mudãrabah represent profit and loss sharing contracts (i.e., risk-sharing contracts – RSHCs), whereas Murãbaha, Salam, Ijãrah and Istisnã represent RSFCs. This study extends the previous studies by addressing an issue that has been neglected in the literature. The extent to which the two groups of contracts are used is extremely important because of its effect on the valuation of Islamic banks and on their earning quality. Design/methodology/approach - This study aims to analyze, using descriptive statistics and inferential statistics, the use of RSHCs and RSFCs made by 72 fully Islamic banks, using a sample that includes banks in most of the countries where Islamic banks are present. Only fully Islamic Banks were considered, that is, banks that are essentially mainstream banks; therefore, banks that include only a specific line of Islamic products, often called the Islamic Window, were excluded. The total number of the sample was 118, but the study was restricted to 72 banks due to the availability of time series data covering the period of study, 2007 to 2015. Findings - The study documents that over the period 2007 to 2015 the moderate banks have better distribution and balance of RSHCs and RSFCs than the conservative and liberal banks. The conservative banks are found to depend greatly on RSFCs, whereas the liberal banks are found to depend almost completely on RSFCs. Unexpectedly, the conservative banks have not shown a noticeable improvement over the period of analysis on their level of reliance on RSHCs. The results show that there is a significant difference in the percentage income distribution of the two contracts between the moderate banks and the conservative banks and between the moderate banks and the liberal banks. However, no significant difference was found between the conservative banks and the liberal banks. Originality/value - The study uses an alternate rating model for Islamic financial institutions. The study examined the issue of risk sharing and risk shifting contracts usage in banks for a long period of nine years and at a global level and with an additional dimension of three categories of Islamic Banks based on the KK model.

Suggested Citation

  • Sunil Khandelwal & Khaled Aljifri, 2021. "Risk sharing vs risk shifting: a comparative study of Islamic banks," Journal of Islamic Accounting and Business Research, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 12(8), pages 1105-1123, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:eme:jiabrp:jiabr-08-2018-0121
    DOI: 10.1108/JIABR-08-2018-0121
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JIABR-08-2018-0121/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/JIABR-08-2018-0121/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/JIABR-08-2018-0121?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:jiabrp:jiabr-08-2018-0121. 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.