ABSTRACT

We carry out a comparative analysis of procyclical leverage between Islamic banks and conventional banks in the GCC countries and Malaysia. We collect an unbalanced panel data set including 57 conventional banks and 73 Islamic banks covering the period 2000–2019. First, we document strong evidence of procyclical leverage for our sample banks. Second, our results highlight that conventional banks have statistically stronger leverage procyclicality than Islamic banks, even after controlling for accounting profitability, economic conditions, bank regulations, and wholesale funding. Moreover, we document that the differential in the leverage procyclicality across Islamic banks and conventional banks has been stronger after the global financial crisis, and seems to be more pronounced in small banks compared with large banks. Our findings suggest that the differential in the leverage procyclicality across the two types of banks is related to their different business models. An implication of our results is that the low leverage procyclicality of Islamic banks is a key factor contributing to the stability of a dual banking system.

摘要

我们对海湾合作委员会国家和马来西亚的伊斯兰银行与传统银行之间的顺周期杠杆进行了比较分析。我们收集了一个非平衡面板数据集，包括 2000 年至 2019 年期间的 57 家传统银行和 73 家伊斯兰银行。首先，我们为我们的样本银行记录了顺周期杠杆的有力证据。其次，我们的结果强调，即使在控制会计盈利能力、经济状况、银行监管和批发融资之后，传统银行在统计上比伊斯兰银行具有更强的杠杆顺周期性。此外，我们发现，在全球金融危机之后，伊斯兰银行和传统银行的杠杆顺周期性差异更大，与大型银行相比，小型银行似乎更为明显。我们的研究结果表明，两类银行的杠杆顺周期性差异与其不同的业务模式有关。我们的结果暗示，伊斯兰银行的低杠杆顺周期性是促进双重银行体系稳定性的关键因素。