Next Article in Journal
Relative Stock Market Performance during the Coronavirus Pandemic: Virus vs. Policy Effects in 80 Countries
Next Article in Special Issue
Due Diligence and Risk Alleviation in Innovative Ventures—An Alternative Investment Model from Islamic Finance
Previous Article in Journal
The Australian Stock Market’s Reaction to the First Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic and Black Summer Bushfires: A Sectoral Analysis
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Impact of Audit Committee Quality on the Financial Performance of Conventional and Islamic Banks

1
Laboratory of Economic Sciences, Faculty of Economic Sciences and Management, University of Sousse, 4023 Sousse, Tunisia
2
Laboratory of Governance, Finance and Accounting, Faculty of Economic Sciences and Management, University of Sfax, 3029 Sfax, Tunisia
3
Department of Accounting and Finance, Faculty of Economic Sciences and Management, University of Monastir, 5111 Mahdia, Tunisia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
International Academic Association of Governance~(IAAG), France.
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2021, 14(4), 176; https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm14040176
Submission received: 25 December 2020 / Revised: 15 March 2021 / Accepted: 15 March 2021 / Published: 12 April 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Islamic Finance II)

Abstract

:
A lot of previous research studied the relationship between audit committee quality and the financial performance of conventional banks before and during the subprime crisis, whereas some other investigations analyzed the same association in the framework of Islamic banks. However, no study has compared these two correlations either before, during, or after the subprime crisis. Several reasons explain the differences, such as the audit committee quality of each bank type, the evaluation method of the financial performance, the research peculiarities, the methodology, the data, and the interpretation. This research aims to compare the impacts of the audit committees’ quality on the financial performance of Islamic and conventional banks between 2010 and 2019. The financial performance measures and audit committees’ determinants of the conventional and Islamic banks concerned 112 banks of each type. The collected data covered four continents: America, Asia, Africa, and Europe. Impacts were compared by using the Generalized Least Squares analysis. The results showed that the audit committee reduced the profitability of two bank types. Moreover, it harmed the conventional banks’ efficiency but reported an unclear effect within Islamic banks. Even so, we noticed that the audit committee had a positive impact on the conventional banks’ liquidity, while the same effect was apparently ambiguous for the Islamic banks’ liquidity. For solvency, the audit committee positively influenced conventional banks while it affected that of Islamic banks.

1. Introduction

As a mechanism of governance, the audit committee (AC) was defined by the US Financial Security Act (Sarbanes-Oxley) as being “an independent advisory body established by and within the board of directors, primarily responsible for overseeing the accounting process, control the financial information and auditing the financial statements. Thus, it is engaged in the services of the board, the remuneration and the control of the auditors’ works”. Referring to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (2002), the AC is a body responsible for appointing, remunerating, retaining, and supervising the work of internal and external auditors. It is responsible for strengthening the independence of audit functions through the review of financial statements and the assessment of risks and vulnerabilities.
In the literature, the ACs’ effectiveness has been the subject of various studies. Some highlighted the impact of audit committee quality (ACQ) on the governance quality (Rahman and Ali 2006; Mohd et al. 2009; Moses et al. 2016; Zalata et al. 2018), while in others, the empirical results agreed on the effect of ACs on financial performance (FP) (Amer et al. 2014; Lidya et al. 2017; Bilal et al. 2018; Aminul et al. 2018). Given its role in monitoring and controlling management activities, the AC applies the necessary corrective actions in the case of fraud. However, Gul (1989) indicated that the existence of an AC did not improve the auditor’s perception of independence. Besides that, Vienot (1995), Bouton (2002), Lin et al. (2006), and Baxter and Cotter (2009) criticized the presence of an AC within companies and confirmed that the AC had no effective activities within the company.
Several studies have tested the relationship between the presence of an AC, the financial reporting quality, and financial statement transparency (Guo and Yeh 2014; Dinu and Nedelcu 2015; AlMatrooshi et al. 2016; Gurusamy 2017; Mohammed 2018; Bouaine and Hrichi 2019; Oroud 2019). In other words, AC research produced senior management financial information quality, and it showed a positive impact on the governance quality before, during, and after the subprime crisis (Zain and Subramaniam 2007; Alzoubi and Selamat 2012). Indeed, corporate oversight by a high-quality committee can reduce the financial statement falsification and earnings’ management (Beasley 1996). Other studies discussed the role of the AC in reducing agency costs between the chief executive officer and the chairman to solve conflicts of interest as a priority to achieve the objective of improving the governance quality (Collier and Gregory 1999). The primary function of the AC is to monitor information related to FP (Xie et al. 2003). In the same vein, Chen et al. (2015) revealed that companies that had established ACs without considering shareholders’ primacy had more advantages to improve their benefits’ quality. However, in favor of agency theory, if the number of auditors was large, the company would realize a poor FP.
The AC within banks plays a dual role. On the one hand, members are responsible for monitoring the creation of monetary value, protecting the wealth of banks, ensuring the effectiveness of governance practices, and managing banks’ potential conflicts of interest. On the other hand, it also serves as a governance mechanism that aligns the interests of executives with those of shareholders. The interest of the AC effectiveness in a financial environment is not stable and suffers from a governance crisis. Therefore, the need to set up this body within banks has increased dramatically, especially after the subprime crisis. The existence of an AC is mandatory for listed companies and banks (Darmadi 2013).
The choice of this period is justified, given that this decade was characterized by stability of the world banking system, allowing us to provide more effective comparative results that better reflect the real differences of the ACs’ impacts on one bank type compared to the other. Thus, this period shows the added value of each AC on the FP compared to the same impacts for the other bank types. The first target of our explanatory research is to study the reached relationship between a set of FP measures and some ACQ determinants for both conventional and Islamic banks. The second purpose is to select the best AC model based on the comparison between the AC’s effects as a governance mechanism on the profitability, efficiency, liquidity, and solvency of each bank type.
Since there are no comparative studies conducted in this area specifically among banks on the international scale, this study will broaden the scope by providing theoretical and empirical evidence of the relationship between various AC characteristics and FP in a specific period. Our second contribution is directing the choice of the preferred AC based on, among various factors, all functions, activities, tasks, and managers. The basis for sorting and channeling data is based on historical information (accounting data, audit reports, bank structure, and other information), giving priority to forecasts and objectives fixed in advance. We synthesized the third contribution to the effective constitution and management of the AC to maintain the FP of the conventional or Islamic banks (IBs) and facilitate their introductions into a new market, the expansion of their activities, the launch of a new banking product, and FP improvement. In the fourth contribution, we showed that the good structure of the AC guaranteed not only the supervision of banks’ FPs, but also mitigated the agency conflict concerning FP between stakeholders and all types of incoming and outgoing governance flows related to all aspects of financial, accounting, audit, and control information, whatever the operational, technical, or behavioral differences between the supervisors and managers may be.
The remainder of this study is structured as follows. First, a literature review will be presented, aimed at developing testable hypotheses, in Section 2, followed by a section outlining the methodology of the research. In Section 4, the results are presented and discussed. In the end, we conclude our study.

2. Conceptual Framework of the Audit Committees’ Determinants

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development principles cover the basics of effective governance, the role of stakeholders in governance, shareholder rights, and the main functions of ownership, board responsibilities, and transparency of the disclosure process. In fact, the partnership governance theory is a broad view of the contractual financial approach. It has garnered a lot of attention and support since its initial formulation. According to the stakeholder theory, all institutions need the complementary support of all their stakeholders in order to ensure the continuity of their activities in the long term (Smith and Pierce 2005). This theory attempts to develop an alternative to the shareholder model in order to reduce agency relationships, fill in its shortcomings, and balance a lot of conflicts of interest.
Stakeholder theory takes ethics into account through the integration of human values into operational management and addresses the ethics of the banks’ functions, directions, regulations, and control. This theory encompasses the relationship between all stakeholders threatened by the opportunism of some of them. This can affect the performance of the institution that benefits from the return via the exploitation of human and financial resources; namely shareholders, managers, creditors, employees, customers, suppliers, and the government (Crowther and Jatana 2005; Himaj 2014). As a result, agency problems in conventional and Islamic financial institutions involve several groups of stakeholders, taking into consideration all the intermediaries and those involved in the organizations’ management and control. Therefore, within the framework of this theory, all individuals or groups that could affect or be affected by the FP are responsible to avoid conflicts of interest (Freeman 1984).
In the case of conventional banks (CBs), the most common agency problems involve at least two stakeholders. Managers may have confusion with other stakeholders or have limited skill in assessing the risks associated with their decisions, and yet have a great deal of freedom of action due to the lack of adequate control systems that can solve agency problems. Likewise, Iqbal and Mirakhor (2004) stated that the IBs’ governance can be described as a system of social control, the essential objective of which is to preserve stakeholders’ rights. This system can be exposed to all types of IBs within an Islamic contractual framework. Their main arguments justifying the classification of Islamic governance as a stakeholder-driven model is based on two Islamic principles, namely the principle of property rights and the principle of commitment to explicit and implicit contractual agreements governing individuals’ economic and social behavior.
The development of restrictions persistently favors the interests of one party (the shareholders) over the strengthening of another party (the rulers) and is not adaptable to conventional or Islamic banks. In contrast, financial institutions operate in dynamic and regularly moving financial markets that operate in a changing institutional environment. Whatever their type, banks carry out exchanges through the intermediaries (stakeholders) responsible for the conduct of their operational management, which are controlled by an impeded governance system. The theory of bank governance must broaden the supervision definition by reaching out better to all stakeholders and by adapting more to the banks’ reality so that it will become more developed and more appropriate.
As a control mechanism, ACs are able to establish an interface between management and the statutory audit, oversee the audit process, as well as resolve any disagreement that may arise between auditors and managers and reduce conflicts of interest or agency costs between them. The AC has many other roles, the most important of which are to control the finance function, to meet regularly with decision-makers and external auditors to evaluate the financial statements, and to supervise the management of financial resources and the governance of financial information. This would help the bank to manage and monitor its FP and independence, appoint external auditors, and ensure that management has put in place sufficient procedures to provide financial information that could jeopardize the bank’s financial strength (Klein 2002; Bryan et al. 2004). In this regard, to better underline the monitoring and control of the AC function, we emphasized the most important characteristics related to the members who formed this mechanism.
In the literature, there is strong opacity, as well as behavioral conflicts which caused the emergence of agency relations and conflicts of interest between shareholders, managers, and third parties within banks. The ambiguous relationship essentially results from the asymmetric behavior between bank stakeholders. Indeed, the governance of conventional and Islamic banks revolves around two key concepts, namely ownership and decision. The separation between them has created conflicting relationships between shareholders, managers, and other stakeholders. Thus, the managers’ decisions do not necessarily match the shareholders’ interests. Most of the time, they diverge. Stakeholder theory has shown, until now, several limits in the recognition of the institutional context, in the behavioral description of operators, as well as in the resolution of conflicting relationships. The banks’ institutional context is extremely dynamic and very complicated. Hence, it is not useful to impose a fixed, stable, and permanent governance model on stakeholders regardless of their peculiarities, types, ages, sizes, or property structures, among other factors.
Several characteristics related to ACs were addressed and tackled by the finance, accounting, and governance literature. Despite increased attention to the ACs’ responsibilities, this study provides evidence of the ACs’ associated impacts on FP and other indicators. The presence of an AC causes the reliability of financial reports to improve FP. In the following, our choice of the AC’s determinants focuses on the impact of the AC size, the expertise of its members, their degree of independence, and the number of annual meetings held by the AC (Bryan et al. 2004) on the FP of conventional and Islamic banks. This choice was justified by three reasons. First, these characteristics related directly to the ACs’ auditors. Second, these measures were the most readily available compared with the other criteria. Finally, the impacts of these determinants on the FP were quantifiable and visible; therefore, we could maximize the number of significant impacts.

2.1. Audit Committee Size

Several previous studies highlighted the effect of the AC size on FP (Krishnan 2005; Zhang et al. 2007; Ghosh et al. 2010; Amer et al. 2014; Dinu and Nedelcu 2015; Gebba and Aboelmaged 2016). The first set of studies observed a positive association between the AC size and FP (Al-Matari et al. 2014; Chou and Buchdadi 2017; Awinbugri and Prince 2019; Sattar et al. 2020; Ashari and Krismiaji 2020). In this sense, Anderson et al. (2004) and Krishnan and Lee (2009) showed that the presence of a large AC provided strong oversight, improved the governance quality, and promoted the disclosure and the transparency degree. Along the same lines, Anderson et al. (2003) and Wan et al. (2014) found that the larger the ACs’ sizes, the more information on the governance quality would be available to the users of financial statements. Hence, this positively and directly influenced profits. Other studies stated that the larger the ACs’ sizes, the less adjusted the results would be (Yang and Krishnan 2005; Lin et al. 2006; Cornett et al. 2009).
However, the second set of studies found a negative association between the governance issues and the AC size (Krishnan 2005). Based on the stakeholder theory, a large AC generates more delegation of power among members. Nevertheless, this habit creates neglect and delay of duty, which causes more opportunistic behavior within the AC. For example, Anderson et al. (2004) revealed that the AC size and the number of AC meetings were negatively correlated and associated with the performance gaps. Another study found that the AC size systematically influenced the downward management of revenues (Cornett et al. 2009). Similarly, Pincus et al. (1989) found that institutions which had large ACs were expected to devote very significant resources and costs to overseeing the financial and accounting reporting process. Furthermore, Eichenseher and Shields (1985) found that large ACs have become less participatory than small ACs, since they lost their concentrations on secondary spots. Likewise, Xie et al. (2003) reported that small ACs tend to be more participatory, since they are characterized by a higher oversight capacity than larger ACs. Furthermore, Indrawan et al. (2018) and Baiden (2020) revealed that a company with a smaller AC size tended to improve income smoothing practices due to lower supervision in the financial reporting process. On the contrary, the larger the AC size, the smaller the practice of income smoothing. This situation occurs because the AC’s oversight function on financial reporting is effectively performed.
Based on the previous studies dealing with the relationship between the variables mentioned, our testable proposition is as follows:
Hypothesis 1 (H1):
There is a negative correlation between the AC size and the FP of conventional and Islamic banks.

2.2. Presence of an Accountant, a Financier, or an Auditor in the Audit Committee

The effectiveness of an AC is one of the main criteria for audit quality. It is highly dependent on a sociopsychological process and the personal and professional qualifications of the members. In particular, the AC effectiveness also depends on stakeholder groups that have influential interactions, exchanges of information, and interactions with AC members and internal or external auditors. The behavioral and technical competence of directors directly influences the audit quality, as the most competent directors and experienced directors invest more in professional development. According to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (2002), all AC members must have knowledge of financial reports, answers to audit questions, and internal control experience. At least one member among the AC should be a financial expert with ongoing experience in accounting. The experience includes covering accounting estimates, accruals, provisions, preparation of financial statements, and auditing financial information. Yet, Bilal et al. (2018) gave the implication of the need to have at least two financial experts within the AC and the obligation of its strengthening.
However, Tanyi and Smith (2015) examined the effect of the financial expertise of AC members and directors on their ability to oversee the financial reporting process. They concluded that the excessive engagement of AC members had a negative and significant impact on the supervision quality and the financial information quality. Companies that have experienced members on their ACs and abnormally high profit accumulation levels are more likely to exceed performance benchmarks. In the same vein, Krishnan (2005) discovered the presence of four factors indirectly associated with the AC that may have an impact on internal control: managers’ work experience, the tendency of management to commit fraud, the permanence of auditors, and financial stress. To minimize these effects, they monitored the influence of other governance bodies to influence the internal control quality and the ACQ, including the internal and external audit function, the board of directors, and the management quality. AC members also have the right to act on a number of imbalances and changes in the financial situation, namely financial stress and financial growth. As a result, the AC characteristics are associated with internal control only after the control of other governance bodies. Thus, the AC contribution to internal control extends beyond other organizations.
In the same research line, Abbott et al. (2004) revealed the presence of a negative relationship between AC expertise and errors detected in the financial statements. This role of ACs has provided a new research line on the relationship between the AC and internal control. Confirming the same idea with the Malaysian perspective, (Saad et al. 2007) affirmed the presence of a negative association between the AC members’ degree of expertise and the detection of discretionary accruals. AC expertise has a negative and significant impact on non-audit fees (Chaudhry 2013).
Indeed, Krishnan (2005) tested the association between the ACQ and the internal control quality of a listed company’s sample. The ACQ is measured by three parameters: size, independence, and expertise. He confirmed that there was a negative association between the presence of internal control problems and the AC’s independence. ACs whose members have financial expertise are more likely to be exposed to the impacts of internal control problems. He noted the concentration of internal control problems at two centers of gravity: working conditions and material weaknesses. Empirically, Krishnan concluded that after the change of auditors, there were companies that had disclosed all the internal control problems while they had intentionally kept other problems.
Similarly, Carrera et al. (2017) examined the correlation between ACs and financial reporting quality in the USA. They found that the proportion of experts within ACs decreased the financial reporting quality. According to them, the AC members’ financial expertise could enhance their intentions and vigilance to bring more sophisticated financial control. Furthermore, Singhvi et al. (2013) examined the market reaction following the departure of a new AC’s directors. They found that after the accounting experts’ departures, the market reacted negatively and significantly. However, the departures of other types of experts or non-expert directors the same association reported a different relationship (Davidson et al. 2004; DeFond et al. 2005; Krishnan and Viswanathan 2008; Krishnan and Lee 2009; Dhaliwal et al. 2010). In all sectors and particularly banking institutions, the AC members’ competence, irrespective of whether they are in accounting or finance, is a dependent ingredient for improving the ACQ and for establishing a system of dynamic auditing. The moderating effect comes mainly from the intelligence of its members.
Therefore, such formatting provides additional creation of the banks’ FP. Given its results, we make the following assumption:
Hypothesis 2 (H2):
There is a negative correlation between the number of experts within the AC and the FP of conventional and Islamic banks.

2.3. Presence of Independent Directors in the Audit Committee

From the foregoing, the exploitation of the degree of independence was measured in the literature by two methods, either by the percentage of newly recruited external and independent directors or by the attendance rate of former directors in the AC (independent or non-independent). The last replaced the proportion of new independent directors to the extent that any extension of the mandate was aimed at rooting the director, regardless of their type. As revealed in Table 1, previous studies put forward different proposals on the proportion of independent directors.
An AC is considered independent if it is composed mainly and compulsorily of non-executive auditors responsible for detecting bad financial management tricks and responsible for internal control and regulatory compliance aimed at mitigating the risk of fraud and misrepresentation of financial information to achieve good results. ACs with a majority of non-executive auditors are considered to be less independent than those with more executive auditors (Mohd et al. 2009). They are less exposed to financial fraud (Abdullah et al. 2008).
Many studies revealed the existence of a positive impact between the percentage of independent members on the AC and FP (Klein 2002; Abbott et al. 2004; Dey 2008; Nuryanah and Islam 2011; Amer et al. 2014; Dinu and Nedelcu; 2015; Aminul et al. 2018; Aram and Dler 2018; Ashari and Krismiaji 2020). Independent experts give ACs significant potential to provide effective oversight (Beasley et al. 2009). Independence provides auditors with the necessary autonomy to detect errors, reveal challenges without pressure, and make the right decisions in a timely and unrestricted manner. The number of external directors is directly related to the level of profit sharing and investment of the AC members in the governance expertise. They are more capable to engage in effective oversight activities than internal administrators. The ACs’ responsibilities provide shareholders with the control process and provide sufficient assurance of independent auditing (Deloitte 2007). Besides that, a significant number of external auditors facilitate the dispersal of administrators’ attention during the discussion of missions and tasks (Krishnan 2005). Some researchers expect that the proportion of independent directors on the AC allows the latter to improve the quality of the preparation process of the financial statements of conventional and Islamic banks. As a result, this policy of selecting auditors stimulates increased reliability of the financial statements. Another current showed that the level of AC independence was positively associated with the financial information quality (Beasley et al. 2000; Mangena and Tauringana 2007) and negatively related to the propensity to manage the outcome (Klein 2002; Abbott et al. 2004).
Other studies concluded that the ACs’ independence had a positive influence on accounting restatements, abnormal regularizations of their profits, and the interests of owners against management conflicts (Al-Rassas and Kamardin 2016; Guo and Huang 2016; Assenga et al. 2018). Recently and similarly, Poretti et al. (2018) stated that higher AC independence increased the autonomy of their declarations and encouraged market reactions to the announcements of results.
After the variant exposure of the results found in the governance literature, we tested the proposition of the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3 (H3):
There is a positive correlation between the percentage of independent directors within the AC and the FP of conventional and Islamic banks.

2.4. The Number of Meetings Held by the Audit Committee

The previous studies exploring the usefulness of the number of AC meetings on different institutional variables showed that the results of these studies were always dependent on the variable types to be explained and the results of the confrontation with other variables, like the category (economic variable, financial variable, accounting variable, and governance variable), number (one or many variables), class (quantitative or qualitative variable), and measurement (number, ratio, and binary variable). The number of meetings as a determinant of the ACQ showed that it was the best indicator of the effectiveness of this governance body (Abbott et al. 2004; Gendron and Bedard 2006). Many studies focused on the effect of the number of meetings on the FP (Hsu and Petchsakulwong 2010; Amer et al. 2014; Dinu and Nedelcu 2015; Al-Matari et al. 2016; Shahkaraiah and Amiri 2017). This association gives more importance to the effect of this determinant in the precision of the ACQ and questions the impact of the number of meetings held by the ACs the conventional and Islamic banks on their FPs.
Several previous studies concluded that there was a negative correlation between the number of meetings held and FP (Aminul et al. 2018; Ahlulbaitulaah 2018; Awinbugri and Prince 2019). In this line of research, Cornett et al. (2009) and Hsu and Petchsakulwong (2010) tested the association between the number of AC meetings and the performance effectiveness of Thai non-life insurance companies for the period of 2000–2007. The FP was measured by technical efficiency, resource allocation, profitability, and costs. This study used the truncated bootstrap regression method. It revealed the existence of a negative impact between the number of AC meetings and the FP effectiveness. Additionally, Al-Matari et al. (2014) studied the association between the number of meetings held by the ACs of a sample of Omani non-financial companies and their FPs between 2011 and 2012. The empirical results showed that the AC meetings had a negative impact on the FP, but this impact was not significant. Moreover, Aminul et al. (2018) examined the effect of board characteristics on the quality of earnings, moderated by the audit quality and the ownership concentration. In this study, the board of directors’ effectiveness was measured by the AC’s determinants. They considered the AC to be complementary to the board’s role in monitoring the profit report. They revealed that the number of AC meetings had a negative impact on the results’ quality (Awinbugri and Prince 2019).
From what is already stated in the literature, our hypothesis is as follows:
Hypothesis 4 (H4):
The number of meetings held by the AC has a negative impact on the FP of conventional and Islamic banks.
After having exposed some interesting literature, we wanted to summarize the development path of theoretical foundations and the formulation of our hypotheses in Table 2.

3. Empirical Method

To choose the bank model that had the most qualified AC for improving FP, we used the conditional method of collecting and filtering samples. For that, we selected only full observations, which allowed us to generalize the new results. Because of the existence of autocorrections in three conventional models and two Islamic models (Table A1 and Table A2 in Appendix A), to embody this comparison, we used the GLS technique, which was the most convenient method to obtain the best comparison between the impacts, allowing us to overcome the constraints between the variables.

3.1. Methodological Aspects

To answer the questions already posed in our hypotheses, the plan of our research observed the following approach: we started with the presentation of data, then stated our study variables, and finally exhibited our models.

3.1.1. Data Collection

From two independent populations, two independent samples consisting of 683 Islamic financial institutions and 2974 conventional financial institutions were taken. Samples were collected from 30 countries between 2010 and 2019, but we ignored all financial institutions guided by specific standards. The selected samples contained only fully conventional or Islamic banks. In addition, we shut out all observations containing missing data, as well as banks with various typical statuses. Although our objective was to obtain two equal samples, we proceeded to filter several of them based on qualitative and quantitative criteria (e.g., activity type, bank width, similarity of home country, and sample equality) until each IB had a similar CB in the same country. Finally, we obtained two equal samples, each containing 1120 observations (bank/year). The banks were located in Algeria (3), Bahrain (6), Bangladesh (4), Canada (1), Egypt (4), France (2), India (2), Indonesia (4), Jordan (4), Kazakhstan (3), Kuwait (6), Lebanon (2), Luxembourg (2), Malaysia (7), Nigeria (2), Oman (3), Pakistan (8), Qatar (6), Saudi Arabia (9), Senegal (3), Singapore (4), South Africa (1), Sri Lanka (1), Sudan (5), Thailand (1), Tunisia (2), Turkey (5), the United Arab Emirates (5), the United Kingdom (5), and the United States of America (2). Since we worked with a conditional method, we extended the field of selection of observations to four continents, first to aggravate the samples’ sizes and secondly to obtain representative and suitable results for the generalization.

3.1.2. Modeling Variables

Main Variables

As we have already mentioned, the variable we wanted to explain was FP. This variable was symbolized by four measurable parameters which were profitability, efficiency, liquidity, and solvency. Table 3 summarizes the measures’ characteristics.

Reciprocal Variables

The FPs of conventional and Islamic banks were explained by four AC determinants. Table 4 provides a detailed description of each variable.

Secondary Variables

In order to control the partial effects of the basic variables, we added four control variables to our models. Table 5 defines the targeted variables that we saw, based on the literature review, that could have an impact on the banks’ FPs.

3.1.3. Models to Estimate

In accordance with the objective of our research, this tool gave us partial impacts from each submodel of each FP measure. We then compared the effects of each submodel and each bank type with the same determinants’ impacts of their counterparts. In what follows, we expose the complete models to be estimated.
The conventional bank multiple regressions are as follows:
Model 1: Association between CBs’ profitability and AC quality:
LnProc it =   α 0   +   α 1 LnTCOMc it   +   α 2 LnPRESEXPc it   +   α 3 LnINDCOMc it   +   α 4 LnREUCOMc it   +   α 5   TYc it   +   α 6 LnAGc it   +   α 7 LnTAc it   +   α 8 LnINFc it   +   ε it  
Model 2: Association between CBs’ efficiency and ACQ:
Effc it   =   α 0   +   α 1 LnTCOMc it   +   α 2 LnPRESEXPc it   +   α 3 LnINDCOMc it   +   α 4 LnREUCOMc it   + α 5 TYc it   +   α 6 LnAGc it   +   α 7 LnTAc it   +   α 8 LnINFc it   +   ε it
Model 3: Association between CBs’ liquidity and ACQ:
Liqc it =   α 0   +   α 1 LnTCOMc it   +   α 2 LnPRESEXPc it   +   α 3 LnINDCOMc it   +   α 4 LnREUCOMc it   + α 5 TYc it   +   α 6 LnAGc it   +   α 7 LnTAc it   +   α 8 LnINFc it   +   ε it
Model 4: Association between CBs’ solvency and ACQ:
LnSolc it =   α 0   +   α 1 LnTCOMc it   +   α 2 LnPRESEXPc it   +   α 3 LnINDCOMc it   +   α 4 LnREUCOMc it   + α 5 TYc it   +   α 6 LnAGc it   +   α 7 LnTAc it   +   α 8 LnINFc it   +   ε it
The Islamic bank multiple regressions are as follows:
Model 5: Association between IBs’ profitability and ACQ:
LnProi it =   β 0   +   β 1 LnTCOMi it   +   β 2 LnPRESEXPi it   +   β 3 LnINDCOMi it   +   β 4 LnREUCOMi it   + β 5 TYi it   +   β 6 LnAGi it   +   β 7 LnTAi it   +   β 8 LnINFi it   +   ε it
Model 6: Association between IBs’ efficiency and ACQ:
Effi it =   β 0   +   β 1 LnTCOMi it   +   β 2 LnPRESEXPi it   +   β 3 LnINDCOMi it   +   β 4 LnREUCOMi it   + β 5 TYi it   +   β 6 LnAGi it   +   β 7 LnTAi it   +   β 8 LnINFi it   +   ε it
Model 7: Association between IBs’ liquidity and ACQ:
Liqi it =   β 0   +   β 1 LnTCOMi it   +   β 2 LnPRESEXPi it   +   β 3 LnINDCOMi it   +   β 4 LnREUCOMi it   + β 5 TYi it   +   β 6 LnAGi it   +   β 7 LnTAi it   +   β 8 LnINFi it   +   ε it  
Model 8: Association between IBs’ solvency and ACQ:
LnSoli it =   β 0   +   β 1 LnTCOMi it   +   β 2 LnPRESEXPi it   +   β 3 LnINDCOMi it   +   β 4 LnREUCOMi it   + β 5 TYi it   +   β 6 LnAGi it   +   β 7 LnTAi it   +   β 8 LnINFi it   +   ε it

3.2. Multivariate Analysis: Regressions Stability Test (Chow Test)

The Chow test was used to test the coefficient stability of the regression on two independent samples through the comparison between the coefficients of two sets of linearly distributed data. The purpose of this test was to detect the presence of structural changes from breaks in data concentrations (Chow 1960). The application of this test consisted firstly of estimating the two samples’ regressions together in a single model, then evaluating the two models separately for each of the two samples, and finally checking whether the coefficients of the two models were statistically different.
The steps of this test are outlined as follows:
Step 1: Collect the residual sum of squares (RSS) after estimation of the whole RSS mother population.
Step 2: Collect the residual sum of squares RSS1 and RSS2 on the basis of two samples of conventional and Islamic banks.
Step 3: Calculate the statistics of the test, following the Fisher law:
F   =   RSS ( RSS 1 + RSS 2 ) RSS 1 + RSS 2 *   N 2 k k   =   RSS ( RSS 1 + RSS 2 ) k RSS 1 + RSS 2 N 2 k ;   F   ( k ;   N 2 k )
The statistics of the test follow Fisher’s law of degrees of freedom ν1 = k and ν2 = N1 + N2 − 2k, where k is the number of explanatory variables including the constant and N is the sum of the observations of two samples N = (N1 + N2), where N1 is the total number of observations of the first sample and N2 is the total number of observations of the second sample.
Step 4: This test is based on Fisher’s law, where if the calculated statistics (F) are lower than the tabulated statistics, we reject the hypothesis of the stability of the coefficients. In this case, we conclude that there is a structural change and vice versa.
Table 6 shows the results of the Chow test for each FP measurement, as well as the results of the two unique models from each sample.

4. Empirical Results

Although the statistical results allowed for clarifying the complicated econometric calculations before studying the impacts of ACs on FP, we began our analysis by making a comparison between conventional and Islamic banks with a simplified interpretation of the descriptive statistics of the different variables of the study. Table 7 summarizes the statistics of the dependent, independent, and control variables related to our samples of conventional and Islamic banks.
According to the results gathered in the table above, for the FP measures we noticed that CBs generated a profitability of 3.27, while their Islamic counterparts showed a slightly lower profitability equal to 2.93. Both models recorded similar standard deviations. By analogy, the CBs revealed a positive efficiency of 0.42 with a variance equal to 0.95, which varied between a minimum of −8.88 and a maximum of 3.04. On the other hand, the IBs showed a slightly negative efficiency equal to 0.03. The IBs’ efficiencies varied within a less narrow range between a minimum of −0.29 and a maximum of 0.23 with a much lower variance of 0.06. Moreover, on average, the IBs had more liquidity (0.79) compared to their conventional analogues (0.53). Notwithstanding that, the observed variance of the CBs’ liquidity was more dynamic (0.40) compared with that of the IBs (0.36). Finally, both types recorded negative credit worthiness. The CBs were insolvent at the mean of 0.16 with a standard deviation of 0.84, whereas the IBs were insolvent at the 0.62 mean with a higher standard deviation of 0.99.
Table 7 also shows the average aspects of the ACQ. First, the average number of AC auditors in banks was measured by the logarithm of the auditor number. Descriptive statistics have revealed that the average number of AC members in IBs varies between 0.69 and 2.30 with a variance of 0.59, while the AC size in their conventional counterparts varied within a narrower range between a minimum number of 0.69 and a maximum number of 2.63 with a higher rate of variance equal to 0.72. We also found that in IBs, the appointment variance of an accountant, a financial expert, or an auditor in their ACs was equal to 1.52 with a standard deviation of 0.69. However, 1.77 of the CBs had a chartered accountant, a finance expert, or an auditor in their ACs, with a lower standard deviation of 0.65. Then, we saw that the mean of independent auditors in the IB ACs was around 1.16 with an oscillation rate equal to 0.57, while the same statistic was equal to 1.31 in CBs, but its shake rate was lower, which was no more than 0.55. Finally, Table 7 also emphasizes that the number of meetings measured by the logarithm of the number of meetings held by the CBs’ ACs was equal to 1.84 times, with a variance greater than the variance of their IB analogues 0.46, while the IB ACs only met 1.75 times, but with a lower stir rate equal to 0.44.
Table 7 also includes the sum of the descriptive statistics for the control variables. Beginning with the bank type, on average, among the three types of IBs highlighted (commercial, investment, and universal), 1.58 IBs monitored their FPs regardless of the bank type, with a variance of 0.66. However, in the case of CBs, only 1.52 of the three types were affected by their FPs with a top swing value of 0.72. Likewise, the inflation analysis showed that at a rate of 1.64, inflation could influence banking performance regardless of the bank type, with smaller variation for the IBs (0.75). Indeed, the analysis revealed that the average age of 3.83 could have an impact on the CBs’ FPs. On the contrary, in the case of IBs, at a lower average of 3.14, the IBs’ ages may have influenced their FPs, while taking into consideration that the variance of the IBs’ ages was much higher (0.92) compared with the variance of their conventional analogues’ ages (0.69). Moreover, the average bank size measured by the natural logarithm of the total assets in IBs was equal to 2.14 and varied with a standard deviation of 0.31, whereas the average size of their competitors in the market was smaller 2.26 and varied with a standard deviation of 0.37.
To value the impact of ACQ on the FP in each bank type, it was necessary to estimate the partial impacts provided by each AC variable in each model. To complete this work, we compared similar partial impacts across multiple linear models. Since the effects resulting from the models could be insignificant, positive, or negative, we insisted only on the significant variables which explained the impacts’ quality in each model and consequently the quality of the AC’s determinants. In what follows, Table 8, Table 9, Table 10 and Table 11 illustrate the different effects of different AC’s determinants on the different FP measures for each bank type.

4.1. Interpretation of the Comparative Results of the Audit Committee Determinants’ Impacts on the Financial Performance Measures of the Conventional and Islamic Banks

4.1.1. Impacts of the Audit Committee Quality on the Profitability of Conventional and Islamic Banks

The results of the correlation between the CB profitability and the auditing system were most statistically significant. Table 8 illustrates the parameters of the effects between the profitability and the set of variables subject to the test. Based on the table below, the AC coefficients revealed two conclusions. LnTCOMc, LnINDCOMc, and LnREUCOMc negatively and significantly affected the CBs’ profitability at the 5%, 5%, and 1% levels, respectively. Nonetheless, LnPRESEXPc reported a favorable and significant impact on the CBs’ profitability at the 10% threshold. The results analysis for the control variables showed that LnINFc seriously affected the CBs’ profitability at the 1% threshold, while LnAGc and LnTAc positively influenced profitability at significant levels of 1% and 5%, respectively. Hence, assumptions n°1 and n°4 were confirmed. However, assumptions n°2 and n°3 were ignored.
According to Table 8, the correlation between the AC characteristics and the IBs’ profitabilities indicated that most coefficients of this model were statistically significant. We found that there were only two AC determinants that had important significance at the 5% level. LnTCOMi revealed a positive effect on profitability, while LnINDCOMi negatively affected it. However, LnPRESEXPi negatively and significantly impacted the IBs’ profitabilities at the 1% threshold. The other AC characteristic showed a negative and insignificant effect. In terms of the auxiliary variables, LnTAi and LnINFi negatively and significantly affected the IBs’ profitabilities at the 5% and 1% levels, respectively. Nevertheless, the other control factors of TYi and LnAGi adopted positive and significant signs on profitability at the threshold of 1%. From the deliberate conclusions, we accepted only the second hypothesis. On the contrary, hypotheses n°1, n°3, and n°4 were rejected.

4.1.2. Impacts of the Audit Committee Quality on the Efficiency of Conventional and Islamic Banks

According to Table 9, the specific model of CB efficiency proved the presence of some statistically significant variables in the exhaustive list of the variables. Dealing with the effect of dependence between the AC’s determinants and the CB efficiency concluded that three AC determinants generated significant and negative impacts on the effectiveness of the CBs’ ACs at the 5% level (LnPRESEXPc and LnINDCOMc) and at the 1% level (LnREUCOMc). On the contrary, we recorded that LnTCOMc revealed a positive impact on the efficacy at the level of 10%. The empirical results also showed that TYc, LnAGc, and LnINFc generated a positive sign, notwithstanding these impacts, and only those that corresponded to LnAGc and LnINFc were significant at the 1% threshold. While LnTAc reported a negative impact on the CBs’ efficiencies, it reached the level of 5% significance. Consequently, in the case of CBs, hypotheses n°2 and n°4 were accepted, but hypotheses n°1 and n°3 were rejected.
Referring to Table 9, this model supported some influential variables in valuing the ACQ in relation to IB efficiency. It revealed that all variables were significant. Similarly, the results specific to the impact of the AC determinants on the IB effectiveness showed that LnTCOMi and LnINDCOMi negatively and significantly affected the IB efficiency at the respective rates of 1% and 5%, whereas the other determinants positively and significantly influenced the IB efficiency. The impact of the LnPRESEXPi was significant at the level of 5%; however, LnREUCOMi was significant at the level of 10%. Regarding the control variables, all of them had a positive impact on the IB efficiency. Among these variables, the LnAGi and LnINFi had significant and influential effects at the 1% threshold, and LnTAi was significant at the 5% threshold, while TYi was significant at the 10% threshold. This illustration convinced us to validate hypothesis n°1 in the IB framework, while hypotheses n°2, n°3, and n°4 were rejected.

4.1.3. Impacts of the Audit Committee Quality on the Liquidity of Conventional and Islamic Banks

Table 10 includes the results of the CB liquidity model. The provided coefficients indicated that only a few variables were statistically significant, given the probability attributed to them. The results underlined that this model was the least significant in the set of estimated regressions. The analysis showed that LnPRESEXPc and LnINDCOMc had negatively affected the CB liquidity, but these effects were not significant. Nonetheless, LnTCOMc and LnREUCOMc played a fundamental role in forcing the liquidity production cycle at the levels of 10% and 1%, respectively. Focusing on the impacts of the control variables on CBs’ liquidity, we found that TYc, LnTAc, and LnINFc negatively affected the cash flow, though not necessarily significantly, except that the impacts received by LnTAc and LnINFc were significant at the 1% level. However, LnAGc’s liquidity strength was positive and significant at the 1% rate. This is why we ignored all four of our hypotheses.
As shown in Table 10, the attributes of the IB liquidity model revealed that it was of globally fair quality, since there were only a few variables that were statistically significant given the probability that was attributed to them. The liquidity model gave rise to coefficients with positive signs just like LnPRESEXPi and LnREUCOMi, but only LnREUCOMi was significant at the rate of 1%. Nonetheless, the effects on LnTCOMi and LnINDCOMi were negative, but only LnINDCOMi effectively affected the IB liquidity at the 1% level. Regarding the effects of the additional variables on the IB liquidity, the combinatorial effect generated by LnAGi and LnTAi was a stimulator for the IB liquidity, even though LnAGi showed a significant impact at the level of 5%, while LnTAi recorded a significant impact at the level of 1%. However, TYi and LnINFi negatively affected the IB liquidity. By way of exception, only LnINFi deteriorated the available liquidity pool at a rate of 1%. For this reason, we validated the first hypothesis in the case of IBs. After all, hypotheses n°2, n°3, and n°4 were rejected.

4.1.4. Impacts of the Audit Committee Quality on the Solvency of Conventional and Islamic Banks

The results of the estimated model of CB solvency showed that most of the impacts were statistically significant given the probability attributed to them. This model was considered among the most significant models that remained. In the following, based on Table 11, the signs of an AC’s determinants revealed that LnPRESEXPc and LnREUCOMc improved the CB solvency ratio at the level of significance of 1%. On the contrary, LnTCOMc and LnINDCOMc lowered the CB solvency, but only LnTCOMc was extremely significant at the 1% level. Focusing on the additional effects, the results revealed that all other control variables showed a worrisome impact on the continued CB solvency, but only the relative impacts of LnTAc and LnINFc were significant at the 1% threshold. As a result, we confirmed only hypothesis n°1 in the context of CBs, but we explicitly rejected hypotheses n°2, n°3, and n°4.
The results of the IB solvency model revealed that there was an average number of variables whose impacts were statistically significant given the probability attributed to them. Table 11 illustrates that three AC determinants exerted pressure to deteriorate the IB solvency, such as LnPRESEXPi, LnINDCOMi, and LnREUCOMi. Nonetheless, the effects related to LnPRESEXPi and LnINDCOMi were significant at the 5% level, but the LnREUCOMi impact was significant just at the level of 10%, whereas LnTCOMi protected the IB solvency significantly at the 1% threshold. Symmetrically, we appreciated that TYi and LnTAi informed us about their favorable effects on solvency, but also, we indicated that only the impact of TYi was significant at the limit of 5%. However, we reported that LnAGi and LnINFi recorded prodigious negative effects, but only inflation reported a significant impact on solvency at the 1% level. Referring to Table 11, these results allowed us to validate hypotheses n°2 and n°4. On the contrary, assumptions n°1 and n°3 were rejected.
Before concluding, it is important to note that the mono-analysis showed confusion for confirming or infirming our hypotheses from a single FP measure. Furthermore, not all tested variables revealed significant impacts on FP measures. The existence of the various signs allowed us to think differently about a new AC model, allowing us to overcome the problem of signs ambiguity, give us standard effects for each bank type, eliminate the signs’ diversity, and constitute an effective and feasible solution to implement, whatever the bank type.

4.2. Analogical Study Between the Significant Impacts of the Audit Committee Quality on the Financial Performance Measures

Based on the above, we retained that whatever the FP measure, the significant impacts of the AC’s determinants were not identical between measures of the same bank type and between equivalent models’ effects for each bank type, and not all the AC determinants revealed significant impacts on FP measures for each bank type. Thus, it is impossible to compare the incomparable. To overcome the constraints of mono-analysis which prevented us from making a final decision on the assumptions due to the diversity of impacts from each determinant on each FP measure, we created a new method called the decisive choice method (MCD) to make a final comparative decision. Moreover, this method made it easier for us to choose the right ACQ and the right bank model through FP. To exceed the diversity of individual effects, we counted only the variables revealing significant impacts. Table 12 shows the ranking of the significant effects of two bank types according to their signs.
As illustrated in the table below, before comparing the similar impacts, this method consisted of ruling out the insignificant impacts and considered only the significant impacts at the limit of 10%. Then, we classified the common determinants of ACs that revealed significant impacts according to the signs between the two bank types. Based on the main results, bringing all the AC impacts on FP together showed that the ACQ in both bank types weakened a part of their profitability, their efficiency, their liquidity, and their solvency, although their ACs protected some part of the same FP measures. However, the number of positive impacts of the ACs on the different CB FP measures were greater than those relating to the IBs. Furthermore, the ACs’ negative impacts corresponding to the CBs’ FP measures were lower than those relating to IBs. Therefore, we concluded that the CBs better governed their FPs thanks to the ACs more than their Islamic counterparts. Within the IBs, this result was explained by the decline in the importance of this governance mechanism in favor of other mechanisms, such as the Charia committee and its weaknesses, in ensuring their role in monitoring FP. Unlike IBs, within the CBs, the negative impacts outweighed the positive impacts. This indicates the failure of this mechanism to overhaul, manage, and perfect the CBs’ FPs. According to the literature, we did not find any comparative studies that exactly studied the AC’s impact on the FPs of two bank types. In contrast, Salem et al. (2021) examined the impact of ACs on earnings management through loan loss provisions among both conventional and Islamic banks operating in Middle East and North Africa countries. They found that the AC size and independence restrained the earnings management practices of IBs’ managers more than those of CBs’ managers.

5. Conclusions

Based on an analysis of partial effects, our study showed that whatever the bank type, it was not obvious that listed banks which controlled their ACs’ compositions would necessarily improve their FPs. Moreover, our results indicated that large banks were neither exempted nor protected against practices of diversion and methods of devaluing FP, whether by acting on its measures or by playing on the ACs’ determinants. Although within conventional and Islamic banks everything is proportional, the presence of inadequacies in the governance systems of this bank category always causes variability in their FPs. Furthermore, the volume and complexity of listed bank transactions require a shift in vision toward the role and location of ACs. From our results, we discovered that the real role of ACs was to bear an additional responsibility for improving FP, not only as a governance and control mechanism, but also as a continuous monitoring mechanism of the whole process of creation of the FP. By giving an additional task integrated into the ACs’ accounts, they will become more responsible to bear the challenges of the ACs’ weaknesses (Nkegbe and Ustarz 2015; Saani 2017).
From the outputs of our study and, more precisely, based on the percentage of positive and negative impacts, we noticed that the IB ACs contributed more to the improvement of their FPs compared with the CBs. However, in the two bank types, the number of determinants which have negatively influenced FP is very close to that of determinants which have recorded positive impacts. The negative impacts can be explained in proportion to the bank type. Implicitly, the percentage of non-significant partial impacts in each bank type is equal to 18.75% of the total number of impacts from ACs on all FP measures. The presence of non-significant partial impacts on the banking FP provides the failure of these determinants or mechanisms, staging their roles in an effective behavioral attitude, especially those which are directly associated with decision centers. Regardless of the bank type, an AC is responsible for planning policies and making the best decisions. It is required to improve the FP and maximize the bank’s profits. However, the lack of FP affects the credibility and feasibility of implementing a quality governance system. This embodies two conclusions: there are many substitutable mechanisms behind the ambiguous effect, and there is a complete failure of the actual governance system that requires a revision.
Empirically, our results can serve as a reference for decision-makers, allowing clarification of the data on the financial competitiveness of two bank types to facilitate the planning of strategic performance programs based on the ACQ. Theoretically, the researchers found that the differences between the results were due to the ACQ of each bank type or the FP evaluation method. However, there are further factors related to the research peculiarities, the methodology, the data, and the interpretation.
Like all research studies, there are a few limitations to note. First, we compared only the ACs’ effects on conventional and Islamic banks. In future research, we may broaden the scope of our study through the integration of other types of conventional and Islamic financial institutions so that it is possible to generalize the results to related financial sectors. Indeed, this study only dealt with the impact of a few ACs’ determinants on a few FP measures. As a new research perspective, future studies could test the impact of several other determinants on a more exhaustive list of FP measures. It is also possible to open a new research axis that compares the importance of a female presence in the ACs of conventional and Islamic banks on their FPs in terms of staff, added value, impact type, and influence degree. In this case, the comparative analysis can be done either by continent, region, or country. Moreover, we can compare the impacts of banks’ ACs on FP monitoring within the framework of other theories such as the agency theory and the scenario theory by adding new variables to our models that measure AC risk and FP risk.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.H. and A.E.A.; data curation, A.H.; formal analysis, A.H. and A.B.; funding acquisition, A.E.A. and A.B.; investigation, A.H.; methodology, A.H. and A.B.; project administration, A.E.A.; resources, A.E.A.; software, A.H. and A.E.A.; supervision, A.E.A. and A.B.; validation, A.B.; visualization, A.H. and A.B.; writing—original draft, A.H.; writing—review and editing, A.H. and A.E.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study has not received any external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available on the website of each bank and from the Datastream database available at: https://infobase.thomsonreuters.com/infobase/login/?next=/infobase/ (accessed on 22 March 2021).

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the anonymous MDPI reviewers and editor that have significantly improved the quality of our work.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be considered a potential conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Autocorrelation tests of the CBs per model.
Table A1. Autocorrelation tests of the CBs per model.
Model TypeWooldridge Test Durbin Watson Test F PrDecision
LnProc it Wooldridge Test-12.0970.0014 < 5%Presence of autocorrelation
Effc it -Durbin Watson Test50.4820.0000 < 5%Presence of autocorrelation
Liqc it Wooldridge Test-21.1870.0001 < 5%Presence of autocorrelation
LnSolc it Wooldridge Test-1.7090.1988 > 5%Absence of autocorrelation
Table A2. Autocorrelation tests of the IBs per model.
Table A2. Autocorrelation tests of the IBs per model.
Model TypeWooldridge Test Durbin Watson Test FPrDecision
LnProi it -Durbin Watson Test58.6950.0000 < 5%Presence of autocorrelation
Effi it -Durbin Watson Test1.3020.2609 > 5%Absence of autocorrelation
Liqi it Wooldridge Test-0.0960.7577 > 5%Absence of autocorrelation
LnSoli it Wooldridge Test-87.5140.0000 < 5%Presence of autocorrelation

References

  1. Abbott, Lawrence J., Susan Parker, and Gary F. Peters. 2004. Audit committee characteristics and restatements. Journal of Practice and Theory 23: 69–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Abdullah, Mohammad Shaoib, Syed Zulfiqar Ali Shah, and Arshad Hassan. 2008. Impact of corporate governance on financial performance of firms: Evidence from Pakistan. The Business Review 11: 282–90. [Google Scholar]
  3. Ahlulbaitulaah, M. M. 2018. An Examination of Public Corporations Audits’ Role in Improving Financial Performance: The Case of Selected Commercial Banks in Ghana. Master’s thesis, School of Business, University of Professional Studies, Accra, Ghana. Unpublished. [Google Scholar]
  4. Alharthi, Majed. 2016. The Determinants of Efficiency, Profitability and Stability in the Banking Sector: A Comparative Study of Islamic, Conventional and Socially Responsible Banks. Ph.D. thesis, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK. [Google Scholar]
  5. Al-Matari, Ebrahim Mohammed, Abdullah Kaid Al Swidi, and Faudziah Hanim Bt Fadzil. 2014. Audit committee characteristics and executive committee characteristics and firm performance in Oman: Empirical study. Asian Social Science 10: 98–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Al-Matari, Yahya Ali, Abdo Ali Homaid, and Hassan Alaaraj. 2016. The Influence of audit committee effectiveness on banks’ performance in Yemen. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues 6: 1424–28. [Google Scholar]
  7. AlMatrooshi, Sara AbdulHakeem Saleh, Abdalmuttaleb M. A. Musleh Al-Sartawi, and Zakeya Sanad. 2016. Do audit committee characteristics of Bahraini listed companies have an effect on the level of internet financial reporting? Corporate Ownership and Control 13: 130–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Al-Rassas, Ahmed Hussein, and Hasnah Kamardin. 2016. Earnings quality and audit attributes in high concentrated ownership market. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society 16: 377–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Alzoubi, Ebraheem Saleem Salem, and Mohamad Hisyam Selamat. 2012. The effectiveness of corporate governance mechanisms on constraining earning management: Literature review and proposed framework. International Journal of Global Business 5: 17–35. [Google Scholar]
  10. Amer, Mrwan, Aiman A. Ragab, and Shehata Elsayed Shehata. 2014. Audit committee characteristics and firm performance: Evidence from Egyptian listed companies. Paper presented at 6th Annual American Business Research Conference, New York, NY, USA, June 9–10. [Google Scholar]
  11. Aminul, Amin, Niki Lukviarman, Djoko Suhardjanto, and Erna Setiany. 2018. Audit committee characteristics and audit–earnings quality: Empirical evidence of the company with concentrated ownership. Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research 7: 18–33. [Google Scholar]
  12. Anderson, Kirsten L., Daniel N. Deli, and Stuart L. Gillan. 2003. Boards of Directors, Audit Committees and Information Content of Earnings. Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance, Working paper n° 2003–04. Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=444241 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.444241 (accessed on 22 March 2021).
  13. Anderson, Ronald C, Sattar A. Mansi, and David M. Reeb. 2004. Board characteristics, accounting report integrity and cost of debt. Journal of Accounting and Economics 37: 315–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Mohammad, Aram Jawhar, and Dler Mousa Ahmed. 2018. The Impact of audit committee and external auditor characteristics on financial reporting quality among Malaysian firms. Research Journal of Finance and Accounting 8: 9–16. [Google Scholar]
  15. Arif, Hussain, Ahmad Bilal Hussai, and Yasir Khan Khalil. 2017. Risk taking behavior of commercial banks in Pakistan. City University Research Journal 7: 317–33. [Google Scholar]
  16. Ashari, Sidiq, and Krismiaji Krismiaji. 2020. Audit committee characteristics and financial performance: Indonesian evidence. Equity 22: 139–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Assenga, Modest, Doaa Aly A, and Hussainey Khaled. 2018. The impact of board characteristics on the financial performance of Tanzanian firms. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society 18: 1089–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Awinbugri, Armstrong Ephraim, and Gyimah Prince. 2019. The impact of audit committees’ meetings and audit fees on the financial performance of listed banks in Ghana. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science 3: 341–46. [Google Scholar]
  19. Baiden, John Nana Ekow. 2020. Board audit committee characteristics and financial performance of selected commercial banks in Ghana. International Journal of Accounting and Financial Reporting 1: 222–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Baxter, Peter, and Julie Cotter. 2009. Audit committees and earnings quality. Accounting and Finance 49: 267–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Beasley, Mark S. 1996. An empirical analysis of the relation between the board of director composition and financial statement fraud. The Accounting Review 71: 443–65. [Google Scholar]
  22. Beasley, Mark S, Joseph V. Carcello, Dana R. Hermanson, and Paul D. Lapides. 2000. Fraudulent financial reporting: Consideration of industry traits and corporate governance mechanisms. Accounting Horizons 14: 441–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Beasley, Mark S, Joseph V. Carcello, Dana R. Hermanson, and Terry L. Neal. 2009. The audit committee oversight process. Contemporary Accounting Research 26: 65–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Bilal, Songsheng Chen, and Bushra Komal. 2018. Audit committee financial expertise and earnings quality: A meta–analysis. Journal of Business Research 84: 253–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Blue Ribbon Committee. 1999. Report and recommendations of the blue ribbon committee on improving the effectiveness of corporate audit committee. The Business Lawyer 54: 1067–95. [Google Scholar]
  26. Bouaine, Wided, and Yosr Hrichi. 2019. Impact of audit committee adoption and its characteristics on financial performance: Evidence from 100 French companies. Accounting and Finance Research 8: 92–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Bougatef, Khemaies. 2011. Differences between Islamic and Conventional Banking: Evidence from Tunisia. Working paper. Manouba: Business school of Tunis, University of Manouba. [Google Scholar]
  28. Bouton, Daniel. 2002. Promoting Better Corporate Governance in Listed Companies. Report of the Working Group Chaired by Daniel Bouton. AFEP, AGREF, MEDE, p. 33. Available online: http://paris-europlace.net/files/a_09-23-02_rapport-bouton_uk.pdf (accessed on 22 March 2021).
  29. Bryan, Daniel, Carol Liu, and Samuel L. Tiras. 2004. The Influence of independent and effective audit committees on earnings quality, work document. SSRN Electronic Journal. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Carrera, Nieves, Tashfeen Sohail, and Salvador Carmona. 2017. Audit committees’ social capital and financial reporting quality. Accounting and Business Research 47: 1–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Chaudhry, Ghafran. 2013. Audit Committees and Financial Reporting Quality. Ph.D. thesis, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK. [Google Scholar]
  32. Chen, Jengfang, Rong-Ruey Duh, Audrey Wen-Hsin Hsu, and Chien-Min Pan. 2015. Can Anglo-Saxon audit committee scheme improve earnings quality in non–Anglo-Saxon environments? Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics 11: 61–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Chou, Te-Kuang, and Agung Dharmawan Buchdadi. 2017. Independent board, audit committee, risk committee, the meeting attendance level and its impact on the performance: A study of listed banks in Indonesia. International Journal of Business Administration 8: 24–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Chow, Gregory C. 1960. Tests of equality between sets of coefficients in two linear regressions. Econometrica 28: 591–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Collier, Paul, and Alan Gregory. 1999. Audit committee activity and the agency costs. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 18: 311–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Cornett, Marcia Millon, Jamie John McNutt, and Hassan Tehranian. 2009. Corporate governance and earnings management at large US bank holding companies. Journal of Corporate Finance 15: 412–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Crowther, David, and Renu Jatana. 2005. Agency theory: A cause of failure in corporate governance. In International Dimensions of Corporate Social Responsibility. Edited by David Crowther and Renu Janata. Hyderabad: ICFAI University Press, vol. 1, pp. 135–52. [Google Scholar]
  38. Darmadi, Salim. 2013. Corporate governance disclosure in the annual report: An exploratory study on Indonesian Islamic banks. Humanomics 29: 4–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Davidson, Wallace N., Biao Xie, and Weihong Xu. 2004. Market reaction to voluntary announcements of audit committee appointments: The effect of financial expertise. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 23: 279–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. DeFond, Mark L., Rebecca N. Hann, and Xuesong Hu. 2005. Does the market value financial expertise on audit committees of boards of directors? Journal of Accounting Research 43: 153–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Deloitte. 2007. Promoting Audit Quality. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited. London: Deloitte. [Google Scholar]
  42. Dey, Aiyesha. 2008. Corporate governance and agency conflicts. Journal of Accounting Research 46: 1143–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Dhaliwal, Dan, Vic Naiker, and Farshid Navissi. 2010. The association between accruals quality and the characteristics of accounting experts and mix of expertise on audit committees. Contemporary Accounting Research 27: 787–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Dinu, Vasile, and Mariana Nedelcu. 2015. The relationship between the audit committee and the financial performance, the asset quality and the solvency of banks in Romania. Transformations in Business and Economics 14: 161–73. [Google Scholar]
  45. Eichenseher, John W., and David Shields. 1985. Corporate director liability and monitoring preferences. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 4: 13–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Elsiefy, Elsayed. 2013. Comparative analysis of Qatari Islamic banks performance versus conventional banks before, during and after the financial crisis. International Journal of Business and Commerce 3: 11–41. [Google Scholar]
  47. Emilia, Garcia-Appendini, and Montoriol-Garriga Judit. 2013. Firms as Liquidity Providers: Evidence from the 2007–2008 Financial Crisis. Journal of Financial Economics 109: 272–91. [Google Scholar]
  48. Filip, Fidanoski, Mateska Vesna, and Simeonovski Kiril. 2014. Corporate governance and bank performance: Evidence from Macedonia. Economic Analysis 47: 76–99. [Google Scholar]
  49. Freeman, R Edward. 1984. Strategic Plafining: AStakeholder Approach, 1st ed. Boston: Harpercollins College Div. [Google Scholar]
  50. Gendron, Yves, and Jean Bedard. 2006. On the constitution of audit committee effectiveness. Accounting, Organizations and Society 31: 211–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Ghecham, Mahieddine A., and Abdalla Salih. 2019. Panel financial ratios data underlying the performance of conventional and islamic banks operating in GCC. Data in Brief 24: 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Ghosh, Al (Aloke), Antonio Marra, and Doocheol Moon. 2010. Corporate boards, audit committees, and earnings management: Pre- and Post- SOX evidence. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting 37: 1145–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Gul, Ferdinand A. 1989. Bankers’ perceptions of factors affecting auditor independence. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 2: 40–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Guo, Huasheng, and Jun Huang. 2016. The even odd nature of audit committees and corporate earnings quality. Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance 31: 1–25. [Google Scholar]
  55. Guo, Re-Jin, and Yin-Hua Yeh. 2014. The composition and effectiveness of audit committees in the presence of large controlling shareholders. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance 26: 96–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Gurusamy, Palaniappan. 2017. Board characteristics, audit committee and ownership structure influence on firm performance of manufacturing firms India. International Journal of Business and Economics Research 6: 73–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Haddad, Achraf, Anis El Ammari, and Abdelfattah Bouri. 2019a. Comparative study of ambiguity resolution between the efficiency of Conventional and Islamic banks in a stable financial context. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues 9: 111–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Haddad, Achraf, Anis El Ammari, and Abdelfattah Bouri. 2019b. Are the Islamic banks really more profitable than the Conventional banks in a financial stable period? Asian Economic and Financial Review 9: 994–1018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Haddad, Achraf, Anis El Ammari, and Abdelfattah Bouri. 2019c. Are Islamic banks really more solvent than conventional banks in a financial stable period? Asian Journal of Finance and Accounting 11: 15–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Haddad, Achraf, Anis El Ammari, and Abdelfattah Bouri. 2020. Comparative and demonstrative study between the liquidity of Islamic and conventional banks in a financial stability period: Which type of banks is the most liquid? International Journal of Financial Research 11: 252–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Himaj, Shkendije. 2014. Corporate governance in banks and its impact on risk and performance: Review of literature on the selected governance mechanisms. Journal of Central Banking Theory and Practice 3: 53–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Hsu, Wen-Yen, and Pongpitch Petchsakulwong. 2010. The impact of corporate governance on the efficiency performance of the Thai non–life insurance industry. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance Issues and Practice 35: 28–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Indrawan, Veronica, Sukrisno Agoes, Hisar Pangaribuan, and Oluwatoyin Muse Johnson Popoola. 2018. The impact of audit committee, firm size, profitability, and leverage on income smoothing. Indian-Pacific Journal of Accounting and Finance 2: 61–74. [Google Scholar]
  64. Iqbal, Zamir, and Abbas Mirakhor. 2004. Stakeholders model of governance in Islamic economic system. Islamic Economic Studies 11: 43–64. [Google Scholar]
  65. Jeff, P. Boone, Inder K. Khurana, and Karthik Raman. 2010. Do the Big 4 and the second–tier firms provide audits of similar quality? Journal of Accounting Public Policy 29: 330–52. [Google Scholar]
  66. Klein, April. 2002. Audit committee, board of director characteristics and earnings management. Journal of Accounting and Economics 33: 375–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Krishnan, Gopal V., and Gnanakumar Viswanathan. 2008. Does the SOX definition of an accounting expert matter? The association between audit committee directors’ accounting expertise and accounting conservatism. Contemporary Accounting Research 25: 827–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Krishnan, Jayanthi. 2005. Audit committee quality and internal control: An empirical analysis. The Accounting Review 80: 649–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Krishnan, Jagan, and Jong Eun Lee. 2009. Audit committee financial expertise, litigation risk, and corporate governance. A Journal of Practice and Theory 28: 241–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Lidya, Primta Surbakti, Hasnah Binti Shaari, and Hasan Mohammed Ahmed Bamahros. 2017. Effect of audit committee expertise and meeting on earnings quality in Indonesian listed companies: A conceptual approach. Journal of Accounting and Finance in Emerging Economies 3: 47–54. [Google Scholar]
  71. Lin, Jerry W., June F. Li, and Joon S. Yang. 2006. The effect of audit committee performance on earnings quality. Managerial Auditing Journal 21: 921–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Mangena, Musa, and Venancio Tauringana. 2007. Disclosure, corporate governance and foreign share ownership on Zimbabwe stock exchange. Journal of International Financial Management and Accounting 18: 53–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Mohammed, Ahmed Maqsad. 2018. The impact of audit committee characteristics on firm performance: Evidence from Jordan. Academy of Accounting and Financial Studies Journal 22: 32–42. [Google Scholar]
  74. Mohd, Mohid Rahmat, Takiah Mohd Iskandar, and Norman Mohd Saleh. 2009. Audit committee characteristics in financially distressed and non-distressed companies. Managerial Auditing Journal 24: 627–38. [Google Scholar]
  75. Moses, Temple, C. O. Ofurum, and Solomon Egbe. 2016. Audit committee characteristics and quality of financial reporting in quoted Nigerian banks. International Journal of Advanced Academic Research 2: 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  76. Muhammad, Farhan Akhtar, Khizer Ali, and Shama Sadaqat. 2011. Factors influencing the profitability of Islamic banks of Pakistan. International Research Journal of Finance and Economics 66: 117–24. [Google Scholar]
  77. Nahar, Shamsun, and Niluthpaul Sarker. 2016. Are macroeconomic factors substantially influential for Islamic bank financing? cross–country evidence. Journal of Business and Management 18: 20–27. [Google Scholar]
  78. Nkegbe, Paul Kwame, and Yazidu Ustarz. 2015. Banks performance in Ghana: Trends and determinants. Ghana Journal of Development Studies 12: 33–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Nuryanah, Siti, and Sardar M. N. Islam. 2011. Corporate governance and performance: Evidence from an emerging market. Malaysian Accounting Review 10: 17–42. [Google Scholar]
  80. Ogbeide, Sunday, and Babatunde Akanji. 2018. A comparative assessment of the financial performance between religious–based and conventional banks in Nigeria. International Journal of Management Applications 1: 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  81. Oroud, Yazan. 2019. The effect of audit committee characteristics on the profitability: Panel data evidence. International Journal of Economics and Finance 11: 104–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Pan, Qinhua, and Meiling Pan. 2014. The impact of macro–factors on the profitability of China’s commercial banks in the decade after WTO accession. Open Journal of Social Sciences 2: 64–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  83. Pincus, Karen, Mark Rusbarsky, and Jilnaught Wong. 1989. Voluntary formation of corporate audit committees among NASDAQ firms. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 8: 239–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Poretti, Cédric, Alain Schatt, and Liesbeth Bruynseels. 2018. Audit committees’ independence and the information content of earning announcements in Western Europe. Journal of Accounting Literature 40: 29–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  85. Rahman, Rashidah Abdul, and Fairuzana Haneem Mohamed Ali. 2006. Board, audit committee, culture and earnings management: Malaysian evidence. Managerial Auditing Journal 21: 783–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Rashid, Abdul, M. Kabir Hassan, and Muhammad Abdul Rehman Shah. 2020. On the role of Islamic and conventional banks in the monetary policy transmission in Malaysia: Do size and liquidity matter? Research in International Business and Finance 52: 1–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Saad, Siti Shaharatulfazzah Mohd, Jonathan Gerard Evans, Zulkarnain Muhamad Sori, and Mohamad Ali Abdul Hamid. 2007. Audit committee authority and effectiveness: The perceptions of Malaysian senior managers. International Research Journal of Finance and Economics 8: 41–56. [Google Scholar]
  88. Saani, Abdul-Jaleel. 2017. Influence of internal control systems on the general performance of microfinance institutions in Ashaiman municipality. Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 2: 114–31. [Google Scholar]
  89. Saha, Asish, Nor Hayati Ahmad, and Umakant Dash. 2015. Drivers of technical efficiency in Malaysian banking: A new empirical insight. Asian–Pacific Economic Literature 29: 161–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Salem, Rami, Muhammad Usman, and Ernest Ezeani. 2021. Loan loss provisions and audit quality: Evidence from MENA Islamic and conventional banks. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance 79: 345–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Sarbanes-Oxley Act. 2002. Final Rule: Disclosure Required by Sections 406 and 407 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Washington, DC: Securities and Exchange Commission. [Google Scholar]
  92. Sattar, Usman, Sohail Ahmad Javeed, and Rashid Latief. 2020. How audit quality affects the firm performance with the moderating role of the product market competition: Empirical evidence from Pakistani manufacturing firms. Sustainability 12: 4153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Saucier, Guylaine, Ralph Barford, Jalynn Bennett, Tullio Cedraschi, L. Yves Fortier, Brian MacNeill, Hon. Frank McKenna, Tom C. O’Neill, John A. Roth, C. Alan Smith, and et al. 2001. Beyond Compliance, Building a Governance Culture. Final report Joint committee on corporate governance. The Institute of Chartered Accountants and Toronto Stock Exchange. Available online: https://ecgi.global/sites/default/files/codes/documents/beyond_compliance.pdf (accessed on 22 March 2021).
  94. Shahkaraiah, Kanukuntla, and Seyed Masoud Sajjadian Amiri. 2017. Audit committee quality and financial reporting quality: A study of selected Indian companies. Journal of Accounting and Business 4: 1–18. [Google Scholar]
  95. Simoens, Mathieu, and Rudi Vander Vennet. 2020. Bank performance in Europe and the US: A divergence in market to-book ratios. Finance Research Letters. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Singhvi, Meghna, Dasaratha V. Rama, and Abhijit Barua. 2013. Market reactions to departures of audit committee directors. Accounting Horizons 27: 113–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Smith, Barry, and Aileen Pierce. 2005. An investigation of the integrity of internet financial reporting. International Journal of Digital Accounting Research 5: 47–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  98. Subika, Farazi, Erik Feyen, and Roberto Rocha. 2011. Bank Ownership and Performance in the Middle East and North Africa Region; Policy Research working paper No. 5620. Washington, DC: World Bank Group eLibrary. Available online: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/3387 (accessed on 22 March 2021).
  99. Tandelilin, Eduardus, Hermeindito Kaaro, Putu Anom Mahadwartha, and upriyatna. 2007. Corporate Governance, Risk Management and Bank Performance: Does Type of Ownership Matter? EADN Working Paper No. 34. Available online: https://docplayer.net/27978399-Corporate-governance-risk-management-and-bank-performance-does-type-of-ownership-matter.html (accessed on 22 March 2021).
  100. Tanyi, Paul N., and David B. Smith. 2015. Business, expertise, and financial reporting quality of audit committee chairs and financial experts. A Journal of Practice and Theory 34: 59–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Gebba, Tarek Roshdy, and Mohamed Gamal Aboelmaged. 2016. Corporate governance of UAE financial institutions: A comparative study between conventional and Islamic banks. Journal of Applied Finance and Banking 6: 119–60. [Google Scholar]
  102. The 8th European Directive. 2006. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32006L0043&rid=3 (accessed on 22 March 2021).
  103. Thomi, Diana Kirigo. 2014. The Effect of Islamic Banking Products on Financial Performance of Commercial Banks in Kenya. Ph.D. thesis, University of Nairobi, Collections, College of Humanities and Social Sciences (CHSS) [23318], Nairobi, Kenya. Available online: http://erepository.uonbi.ac.ke/handle/11295/75430 (accessed on 22 March 2021).
  104. Thu, Nguyen Thi Hoai, Pham Manh Hung, and Nguyen Thi Lan Anh. 2016. An empirical study of corporate governance and banks’ performance in Vietnamese commercial banks. Journal of Management 6: 87–114. [Google Scholar]
  105. Treadway Commission. 1987. Report of the National Commission on Fraudulent Financial Reporting. New York: Treadway Commission. [Google Scholar]
  106. Vienot. 1995. The Board of Directors of Listed Companies. Report of the CNPF-AFEP working group. Paris: French Association of Private Enterprises and CNPF. [Google Scholar]
  107. Wan, Amalina Wan Abdullah, Majella Percy, and Jenny Stewart. 2014. Corporate Governance Disclosure Practices of Islamic Banks: The Case of Islamic Banks in the Southeast Asian and the Gulf Cooperation Council Region, Journal of International Accounting Research, Conference Working Paper. Available online: https://af.polyu.edu.hk/media/7217/cc027-cg-disclosures-of-islamic-banks-jiar-2014-14-feb-2014_final.pdf (accessed on 22 March 2021).
  108. Wang, Yang, Xiuping Sui, and Zhang Qi. 2021. Can fintech improve the efficiency of commercial banks? An analysis based on big data. Research in International Business and Finance 55: 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Xie, Biao, Wallace N. Davidson, and Peter J. DaDalt. 2003. Earnings management and corporate governance: The role of the board and the audit committee. Journal of Corporate Finance 9: 295–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Yang, Joon S., and Jagan Krishnan. 2005. Audit committees and quarterly earnings management. International Journal of Auditing 9: 201–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Zain, Mazlina Mat, and Nava Subramaniam. 2007. Internal auditor perceptions on audit committee interactions: A qualitative study in Malaysian public corporations. International Review 15: 894–908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Zalata, Alaa Mansour, Tauringana Venancio, and Tingbani Ishmael. 2018. Audit committee financial expertise, gender, and earnings management: Does gender of the financial expert matter? International Review of Financial Analysis 55: 170–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  113. Zhang, Yan, Jian Zhou, and Nan Zhou. 2007. Audit committee quality, auditor independence and internal control weaknesses. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 26: 300–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Literature review of the proposed proportion of independent directors in the audit committee (AC).
Table 1. Literature review of the proposed proportion of independent directors in the audit committee (AC).
SourceDegree of Independence
Treadway Commission (1987) All members should be independent.
Vienot (1995)At least two-thirds of the independent directors and no corporate officer.
Blue Ribbon Committee (1999)All members should be independent.
Sarbanes-Oxley Act (2002)All members should be independent (301).
Saucier et al. (2001)100% of the non-real members (independent but able to benefit from a stock option).
Bouton (2002) At least two-thirds of the independent directors and no corporate officer (p. 12).
The 8th European Directive (2006)At least one member must be independent. Member states are free to lay down other rules concerning the composition of the AC (Article 41-1).
Table 2. Summary of hypotheses by the AC’s determinant.
Table 2. Summary of hypotheses by the AC’s determinant.
AC’s DeterminantHypothesisPrevious Studies
The number of auditors within the ACH1: There is a negative correlation between the AC size and the FP of conventional and Islamic banks.Eichenseher and Shields (1985); Pincus et al. (1989); Xie et al. (2003); Anderson et al. (2004); Krishnan (2005); Cornett et al. (2009); Indrawan et al. (2018); Baiden (2020).
The number of experts within the ACH2: There is a negative correlation between the number of experts within the AC and the FP of conventional and Islamic banks.Abbott et al. (2004); Krishnan (2005); Krishnan and Lee (2009); Dhaliwal et al. (2010); Saad et al. (2007); Chaudhry (2013); Singhvi et al. (2013); Tanyi and Smith (2015); Carrera et al. (2017); Bilal et al. (2018).
The number of independent directors within the ACH3: There is a positive correlation between the percentage of independent directors within the AC and the FP of conventional and Islamic banks.Nuryanah and Islam (2011); Amer et al. (2014); Dinu and Nedelcu (2015); Al-Rassas and Kamardin (2016); Guo and Huang (2016); Aminul et al. (2018); Assenga et al. (2018); Poretti et al. (2018); Ashari and Krismiaji (2020).
The number of meetings of the ACH4: The number of meetings held by the AC has a negative impact on the FP of conventional and Islamic banks.Hsu and Petchsakulwong (2010); Amer et al. (2014); Al-Matari et al. (2014); Dinu and Nedelcu (2015); Al-Matari et al. (2016); Shahkaraiah and Amiri (2017); Aminul et al. (2018); Ahlulbaitulaah (2018); Awinbugri and Prince (2019).
Table 3. Main variables’ descriptions.
Table 3. Main variables’ descriptions.
FP Measurement CBs’ Rating IBs’ Rating MeasurementPrevious Studies
Profitability ratio ProcProiMarginal Profit/Total RevenuesTandelilin et al. (2007); Ogbeide and Akanji (2018); Haddad et al. (2019b)
Liquidity ratio LiqcLiqiNet Loans/Total AssetsElsiefy (2013); Simoens and Vennet (2020); Haddad et al. (2020)
Efficiency ratio EffcEffiOperating Result/Average Total AssetsEmilia and Judit (2013); Ghecham and Salih (2019); Haddad et al. (2019a)
Solvency ratio SolcSoliTotal Loans/Total DepositsBougatef (2011); Haddad et al. (2019c); Wang et al. (2021)
Table 4. Reciprocal variables’ descriptions.
Table 4. Reciprocal variables’ descriptions.
The Internal Governance MechanismCBs’ Rating IBs’ Rating MeasurementPrevious Studies
Audit CommitteeSize of CB’s AC (TCOMc)Size of the IB’s AC (TCOMi)Number of directors or auditors in the ACCornett et al. (2009); Amer et al. (2014); Thu et al. (2016)
Competence of the CB’s AC (PRESEXPc)Competence of the IB’s AC (PRESEXPi)Binary variable: 1 if there is an accountant, a financier or an auditor on the AC or 0 if notDhaliwal et al. (2010); Amer et al. (2014); Bilal et al. (2018)
Independence of the CB’s AC (INDCOMc)Independence of the IB’s AC (INDCOMi)Number of independent directors in the ACMangena and Tauringana (2007); Amer et al. (2014); Bilal et al. (2018)
AC meetings’ number (REUCOMc)Number of AC meetings (REUCOMi)Number of meetings held by the AC during a yearBeasley et al. (2000); Cornett et al. (2009); Amer et al. (2014)
Table 5. Secondary variables’ descriptions.
Table 5. Secondary variables’ descriptions.
Control VariableCBs’ Rating IBs’ Rating MeasurementPrevious Studies
Bank Type TYcTYiA qualitative variable that takes three modalities:
1 if the bank is commercial
2 if the bank is investment
3 if the bank is universal
Cornett et al. (2009); Subika et al. (2011); Thomi (2014)
Bank Age AGcAGiAge of the Islamic or conventional bank in the concerned yearJeff et al. (2010); Filip et al. (2014); Arif et al. (2017)
Bank SizeTAcTAiLogarithm of the total assets of the Islamic or conventional bank Muhammad et al. (2011); Saha et al. (2015); Rashid et al. (2020)
InflationINFcINFiThe inflation rate in the country of origin of the Islamic or conventional bankPan and Pan (2014); Alharthi (2016); Nahar and Sarker (2016)
Table 6. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests of all models per sample and per financial performance measure.
Table 6. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests of all models per sample and per financial performance measure.
ANOVA Test of the Overall Sample ProfitabilityInterpretation
SourceDegree of FreedomSum of SquaresAverage SquaresFSig Prob > FN = 2224 and k = 9
Fp→(9; 2206)
F calculated of the profitability = RSS ( RSS 1 + RSS 2 ) RSS 1 + RSS 2 × N 2 k k = 277.637 ( 152.442 + 100.248 ) ( 152.442 + 100.248 ) × 2224 ( 2   ×   9 ) 9 = 24.19 > 1.59
From the analysis of variance test, we retained that the calculated Fisher statistics were greater than the tabulated statistics, so we accepted the stability hypothesis. As a result, we concluded that the AC coefficients relating to the profitability-specific models of the conventional and Islamic banks were unalterable.
Model LnPro it 854.166.778.560.00
Residuals2002277.630.79--
Total2010331.80 0.92 --
ANOVA test of the CBs’ profitabilities
Model LnProc it 842.815.356.570.00
Residuals994152.440.81--
Total1004195.251.00--
ANOVA test of the IBs’ profitabilities
Model LnProi it 832.734.096.330.00
Residuals885100.240.64--
Total993132.98 0.81--
ANOVA test of the overall sample efficiencyInterpretation
Model Eff it 865.138.146.940.00N = 2224 and k = 9
Fe→(9; 2206)
F calculated of the efficiency = RSS ( RSS 1 + RSS 2 ) RSS 1 + RSS 2 × N 2 k k = 402.399 ( 227.230 + 0.234 ) ( 227.230 + 0.234 ) × 2224 ( 2 × 9 ) 9   = 188.50 > 1.59
The analysis of variance test indicated that the calculated Fisher statistics were greater than the tabulated statistics, for which we accepted the null hypothesis. From the results of the Fisher test, we approved that the AC coefficients relating to the efficiency-specific models of conventional and Islamic banks were stable.
Residuals1996402.391.17--
Total2004467.521.33--
ANOVA test of the CBs’ efficiencies
Model Effc it 874.299.287.400.00
Residuals994227.231.25--
Total1002301.521.59--
ANOVA test of the IBs’ efficiencies
Model Effi it 80.040.004.380.00
Residuals9990.230.00--
Total10070.270.00 --
ANOVA test of the overall sample liquidityInterpretation
Model Liq it 81.830.22 6.220.00N = 2224 and k = 9
Fl→(9 ; 2206)
F calculated of the liquidity = RSS ( RSS 1 + RSS 2 ) RSS 1 + RSS 2 × N 2 k k = 14.905 ( 5.912 + 7.680 ) ( 5.912 + 7.680 ) × 2224 ( 2 × 9 ) 9 = 23.67 > 1.59
Analysis of variance showed that the calculated Fisher statistics were greater than the tabulated statistics, in which case we adopted the null hypothesis. Based on the established calculation, we confirmed that the AC coefficients relative to the liquidity-specific models of the conventional and Islamic banks were stable.
Residuals199714.900.03--
Total200516.730.04--
ANOVA test of the CBs’ liquidities
Model Liqc it 81.150.145.180.00
Residuals8885.910.02--
Total9967.060.03--
ANOVA test of the IBs’ liquidities
Model Liqi it 81.540.194.630.00
Residuals9987.680.04--
Total10069.220.04--
ANOVA test of the overall sample solvencyInterpretation
Model LnSol it 8275.5214.502.080.03N = 2224 and k = 9
Fs→ (9; 2206)
F calculated of the solvency = RSS ( RSS 1 + RSS 2 ) RSS 1 + RSS 2 × N 2 k k = 1034.584 ( 58.779 + 1132.028 ) ( 58.779 + 1132.028 ) × 2224 ( 2 × 9 ) 9 = −32.15 < 1.59
The solvency model variances revealed that the calculated Fisher statistics were weaker than the tabulated statistics. That is why we immediately rejected the stability hypothesis for these models. Therefore, we concluded that the AC coefficients relating to the solvency-specific models of the conventional and Islamic banks were not stable.
Residuals19911034.582.89--
Total19991310.113.48--
ANOVA test of the CBs’ solvencies
Model LnSolc it 86.970.873.150.00
Residuals99658.770.27--
Total100465.750.29--
ANOVA test of the IBs’ solvencies
Model LnSoli it 8110.6713.832.250.02
Residuals9921132.026.15--
Total10001242.706.47--
Table 7. Descriptive statistics of conventional and Islamic bank samples.
Table 7. Descriptive statistics of conventional and Islamic bank samples.
CB Sample N1 = 1120 ObservationsIB Sample N2 = 1120 Observations
VariableObsMeanStd. Dev.MinMaxVariableObsMeanStd. Dev.MinMax
LnProc11203.270.99−1.967.05LnProi11202.930.98−0.596.66
Effc11200.420.95−8.883.04Effi11200.030.06−0.290.23
Liqc11200.560.400.531.15Liqi11200.990.360.741.32
LnSolc1120−0.160.84−13.814.84LnSoli1120−0.620.99−21.076.95
LnTCOMc11201.610.721.092.63LnTCOMi1120 1.630.590.692.30
LnPRESEXPc11201.770.6502.30LnPRESEXPi11201.520.6901.94
LnINDCOMc11201.310.5501.60LnINDCOMi11201.160.5701.38
LnREUCOMc11201.840.4602.99LnREUCOMi11201.750.4403.46
TYc11201.520.7213TYi11201.580.6613
LnAGc11203.830.690.694.53LnAGi11203.140.9204.15
LnTAc11202.260.370.673.02LnTAi11202.140.310.392.83
LnINFc11201.640.76-1.493.24LnINFi11201.640.75−1.493.24
Table 8. Regression results of the AC’s impacts on the profitability of CBs and IBs.
Table 8. Regression results of the AC’s impacts on the profitability of CBs and IBs.
LnProcCoefZP > |z|(95% Conf. Interval)LnProiCoefZP > |z|(95% Conf. Interval)
LnTCOMc−0.36−1.180.019 **−0.980.24LnTCOMi0.742.260.025 **0.091.39
LnPRESEXPc0.321.910.058 *−0.010.66LnPRESEXPi−0.18−1.040.006 ***−0.540.16
LnINDCOMc−0.20−1.480.014 **−0.460.06LnINDCOMi−0.33−2.410.017 **−0.60−0.06
LnREUCOMc−0.76−5.570.000 ***−1.04−0.49LnREUCOMi−0.06−0.460.645−0.330.20
TYc−0.04−0.430.670−0.160.25TYi0.272.630.010 ***0.060.48
LnAGc0.272.570.001 ***0.060.47LnAGi0.171.920.000 ***−0.000.36
LnTAc0.160.770.023 **−0.250.58LnTAi−0.75−2.280.024 **−1.40−0.10
LnINFc−0.31−3.040.003 ***−0.51−0.10LnINFi−0.66−5.590.000 ***−0.90−0.43
Constant3.935.390.0002.495.36Constant3.865.080.0002.365.36
Note: * Correlation is significant at the 0.10 level. ** Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level. *** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.
Table 9. Regression results of the AC’s impacts on the efficiency of CBs and IBs.
Table 9. Regression results of the AC’s impacts on the efficiency of CBs and IBs.
EffcCoefZP > |z|(95% Conf. Interval)EffiCoefZP > |z|(95% Conf. Interval)
LnTCOMc0.561.460.095 *−0.191.32LnTCOMi−0.56−1.460.002 ***−0.191.32
LnPRESEXPc−0.50−2.390.018 **−0.92−0.08LnPRESEXPi0.502.390.018 **−0.92−0.08
LnINDCOMc−0.33−1.990.048 **−0.67−0.00LnINDCOMi−0.33−1.990.048 **−0.67−0.00
LnREUCOMc−0.29−1.690.003 ***−0.630.04LnREUCOMi0.291.690.093 *−0.630.04
TYc0.020.150.877−0.290.25TYi0.020.150.055 *−0.290.25
LnAGc0.352.650.009 ***0.080.61LnAGi0.352.650.009 ***0.080.61
LnTAc−0.72−2.500.013 **−1.29−0.15LnTAi0.722.500.013 **−1.29−0.15
LnINFc0.453.570.000 ***0.200.70LnINFi0.453.570.000 ***0.200.70
Constant−3.63−3.820.000−5.51−1.75Constant−3.63−3.820.000−5.51−1.75
Note: * Correlation is significant at the 0.10 level. ** Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level. *** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.
Table 10. Regression results of the AC’s impacts on the liquidity of CBs and IBs.
Table 10. Regression results of the AC’s impacts on the liquidity of CBs and IBs.
LiqcCoefZP > |z|(95% Conf. Interval)LiqiCoefZP > |z|(95% Conf. Interval)
LnTCOMc0.021.750.064 *−0.040.00LnTCOMi−0.01−0.190.847−0.110.09
LnPRESEXPc−0.00−0.390.693−0.010.01LnPRESEXPi0.031.210.227−0.020.09
LnINDCOMc−0.00−0.030.975−0.010.01LnINDCOMi−0.00−0.010.001 ***−0.040.04
LnREUCOMc0.000.930.006 ***−0.000.01LnREUCOMi0.062.570.000 ***0.010.10
TYc−0.00−0.050.963−0.000.00TYi−0.01−1.080.283−0.050.016
LnAGc0.003.090.002 ***0.000.01LnAGi0.021.500.034 **−0.000.06
LnTAc−0.02−2.460.000 ***0.000.04LnTAi0.092.880.004 ***−0.16−0.03
LnINFc−0.00−1.060.001 ***−0.000.01LnINFi−0.07−4.460.000 ***−0.11−0.04
Constant−0.06−2.420.017−0.11−0.01Constant0.766.410.0000.520.99
Note: * Correlation is significant at the 0.10 level. ** Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level. *** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.
Table 11. Regression results of the AC’s impacts on the solvency of CBs and IBs.
Table 11. Regression results of the AC’s impacts on the solvency of CBs and IBs.
LnSolcCoefZP > |z|(95% Conf. Interval)LnSoliCoefZP > |z|(95% Conf. Interval)
LnTCOMc−0.01−0.250.00 ***−0.130.16LnTCOMi0.251.520.00 ***−0.590.07
LnPRESEXPc0.000.040.00 ***−0.070.07LnPRESEXPi−0.141.580.03 **−0.030.32
LnINDCOMc−0.07−2.240.22−0.13−0.00LnINDCOMi−0.03−0.420.01 **−0.110.17
LnREUCOMc0.031.080.00 ***−0.020.10LnREUCOMi−0.15−2.000.05 *0.000.30
TYc−0.00−0.060.95−0.040.04TYi0.132.380.01 **−0.25−0.02
LnAGc−0.00−0.310.75−0.020.04LnAGi−0.01−0.320.75−0.130.09
LnTAc−0.27−4.240.00 ***0.140.39LnTAi0.070.650.51−0.280.14
LnINFc−0.03−1.340.00 ***−0.090.01LnINFi−0.17−3.060.00 ***−0.28−0.06
Constant−0.02−0.140.88−0.300.26Constant0.501.350.18−0.231.24
Note: * Correlation is significant at the 0.10 level. ** Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level. *** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.
Table 12. Summary of the significant impacts of the AC’s determinants on FP measurements between conventional and Islamic banks.
Table 12. Summary of the significant impacts of the AC’s determinants on FP measurements between conventional and Islamic banks.
Bank TypeCBsIBs
ModelPositive ImpactNegative ImpactPositive ImpactNegative Impact
Pro it LnPRESEXPcLnTCOMc
LnINDCOMc
LnREUCOMc
LnTCOMiLnPRESEXPi
LnINDCOMi
Eff it LnTCOMcLnPRESEXPc
LnINDCOMc
LnREUCOMc
LnPRESEXPi
LnREUCOMi
LnTCOMi
LnINDCOMi
Liq it LnTCOMc LnREUCOMc-LnREUCOMiLnINDCOMi
Sol it LnPRESEXPc
LnREUCOMc
LnTCOMcLnTCOMiLnPRESEXPi
LnINDCOMi
LnREUCOMi
Reconciliation of Similar Impacts6/167/165/168/16
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Haddad, A.; El Ammari, A.; Bouri, A. Impact of Audit Committee Quality on the Financial Performance of Conventional and Islamic Banks. J. Risk Financial Manag. 2021, 14, 176. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm14040176

AMA Style

Haddad A, El Ammari A, Bouri A. Impact of Audit Committee Quality on the Financial Performance of Conventional and Islamic Banks. Journal of Risk and Financial Management. 2021; 14(4):176. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm14040176

Chicago/Turabian Style

Haddad, Achraf, Anis El Ammari, and Abdelfattah Bouri. 2021. "Impact of Audit Committee Quality on the Financial Performance of Conventional and Islamic Banks" Journal of Risk and Financial Management 14, no. 4: 176. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm14040176

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop