Economics at your fingertips  

Comparative credit risk in Islamic and conventional bank

Md. Nurul Kabir, Andrew Worthington () and Rakesh Gupta ()

Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 2015, vol. 34, issue C, 327-353

Abstract: In this paper, we consider the levels of credit risk in Islamic and conventional banks. One problem with existing studies is the use of accounting information alone to assess credit risk, and this could be especially misleading with Islamic banking. Using a market-based credit risk measure, Merton's distance-to-default (DD) model, we evaluate the credit risk of 156 conventional banks and 37 Islamic banks across 13 countries between 2000 and 2012. We also calculate the accounting information-based Z-score and nonperforming loan (NPL) ratio for the purpose of comparison. Our results show that Islamic banks have significantly lower credit risk than conventional banks as based on DD. In contrast, and as expected, Islamic banks display much higher credit risk using the Z-score and NPL ratio. These findings suggest that the measure chosen plays a significant role in assessing the actual credit risk of Islamic banks.

Keywords: Credit risk; Distance-to-default; Z-scores; Nonperforming loans; Islamic banking (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: G21 G32 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2015
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (16) Track citations by RSS feed

Downloads: (external link)
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link:

Access Statistics for this article

Pacific-Basin Finance Journal is currently edited by K. Chan and S. Ghon Rhee

More articles in Pacific-Basin Finance Journal from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Dana Niculescu ().

Page updated 2019-10-17
Handle: RePEc:eee:pacfin:v:34:y:2015:i:c:p:327-353