Islamic Banks: More Resilient to Crisis? [IMF Survey online]
October 4, 2010
- Islamic banks fared differently from conventional banks during global crisis
- Weaknesses in risk management hurt Islamic bank profitability in 2009
- Crisis revealed important regulatory and supervisory challenges
A new IMF study
compares the performance of Islamic banks and conventional banks during
the recent financial crisis, and finds that Islamic banks, on average,
showed stronger resilience during the global financial crisis.
But the study also finds that Islamic banks faced larger losses than
their conventional peers when the crisis hit the real economy.
In “The Effects of the Global Crisis on Islamic and Conventional Banks: A Comparative Study,”
economists Jemma Dridi of the IMF’s Middle East and Central Asia
Department and Maher Hasan of the IMF’s Monetary and Capital Market
Department look at the effects of the crisis on bank profitability,
credit, and asset growth in countries where both types of banks have a
significant market share. The new working paper adds an empirical
dimension to the debate on the relationship between Islamic banking and
financial stability, a topic that has generated renewed interest since
the global crisis.
Too big to ignore
Islamic finance is one of the fastest growing segments of the global
financial industry. In some countries, it has become systemically
important and, in many others, it is too big to be ignored. It is
estimated that the size of the Islamic banking industry at the global
level was close to $820 billion at end-2008. The largest Islamic banks
are located in the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council (Bahrain,
Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates).
While Islamic banks play roles similar to conventional banks,
fundamental differences exist between the two models. The main
difference between Islamic and conventional banks is that the former
operate in accordance with the rules of Shariah, the legal code of
Islam. The central concept in Islamic banking and finance is justice,
which is achieved mainly through the sharing of risk. Stakeholders are
supposed to share profits and losses, and charging interest is
prohibited.
There are also differences in terms of financial intermediation, the
paper notes. While conventional intermediation is largely debt based,
and allows for risk transfer, Islamic intermediation, by contrast, is
asset based, and centers on risk sharing. One key difference between
conventional banks and Islamic banks is that the latter’s model does not
allow investing in or financing the kind of instruments that have
adversely affected their conventional competitors and triggered the
global financial crisis. These include toxic assets, derivatives, and
conventional financial institution securities.
Crisis impact
To control for varying conditions across financial systems, the paper
looks at the actual performance of Islamic banks and conventional banks
in countries where both have significant market shares (see Chart 1).
It uses bank-level data covering 2007−10 for about 120 Islamic banks and
conventional banks in eight countries—Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait,
Malaysia, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates.
These countries host most of the world’s Islamic banks (more than
80 percent of the industry, excluding Iran) but also have large
conventional banking sectors. The key variables used to assess the
impact are the changes in profitability, bank lending, bank assets, and
external bank ratings (more..)