This article reviews empirical studies on Islamic banking and concentrates on their main findings while highlighting future research directions. The earlier literature on Islamic banking built a foundation using normative judgment, descriptive analysis, theoretical development, and appraisal of country experiences. The paper discusses scholars’ concerns that have led to a paradigm shift in the system and highlight practitioners’ disquiet about recent practices. Subsequent research focuses on empirical investigations without extensive analytical and theoretical exploration in the area. Recent studies focus on the financial crisis, solvency, maqasid, disclosure and financial inclusion, and regulations. Even with the spillover effect on the Islamic banks after the crisis, a few pieces of evidence show that the system performs below its conventional counterpart. The paper discusses issues that are relevant to Islamic banking and identifies other avenues for future research.

During the 2008 global financial crisis, financial institutions in the United States experienced big losses, and some firms failed. These failures occurred despite the external and internal regulatory mechanisms imposed upon the financial sector aimed at ensuring confidence and stability in the financial system. This study analyzes the impact of macroeconomic and financial stress on the profitability of financial firms. We utilize data from 1980 to 2010 to model firm profitability and stock returns using a panel regression, fixed-effect methodology. Our results show that the profitability of all firms is negatively affected by increases in macroeconomic and financial stress, measured by the National Financial Conditions Index (NFCI) and the Adjusted National Financial Conditions Index (ANFCI), respectively; however financial sector firms have exhibited an increased marginal sensitivity to both stress indexes that began in the 1990s and continued through the financial crisis of 2008. In a further analysis of the financial sector and banks, we show that depository institutions are relatively robust to macroeconomic and financial stress, and financial sector instability is driven by non-depository finance, investment, and real estate firms. Additionally, the largest 33 percent of financial firms and banks exhibit increased sensitivity to macroeconomic stress in the most recent sample. Our results coincide with the risks associated with recent trends in the financial services industry, such as deregulation, global market integration, financial product innovation, and the increasing predominance of non-depository intermediation.

We consider consumer responsiveness to changes in the macroeconomic environment (i.e. product demand sensitivity) to be a systematic industry characteristic useful to studying how industrial diversification adds value. We argue that diversified firms, with the advantages of their internal capital market and the imperfectly correlated cash flows of their segments, will perform better than focused firms when the demand sensitivity of a product increases. Our empirical evidence reveals a significant diversification premium associated with an increase in sensitivity. Moreover, such premium predominantly exists during recessionary periods, disappearing in the presence of low coinsurance and inefficient use of the internal capital market. Our results are robust to alternative measures of sensitivity and performance metrics, different empirical model specifications, and to the concern of possibly biased estimations associated with the sample of diversified and focused firms.

We investigate whether and how political systems affect the financial soundness of conventional and Islamic banks. Using factors extracted from principal component analysis, we find that Islamic banks underperform their conventional counterparts in more democratic political systems but outperform them in hybrid and Sharia’a-based legal systems. The findings reflect the challenges Islamic banks face in Western countries in terms of perception, financial infrastructure, and regulatory constraints while mirroring the recognition of their specificities and their cultural and religious compliance with Sharia’a law in Muslim countries. The findings are robust to a battery of alternative estimation techniques and methods of correcting standard errors.

Using political corruption conviction data from the U.S. Department of Justice, we examine the impact of local corruption on firms’ debt maturity structure while exploring both demand-side and supply-side explanations. Our results support the demand-side story and indicate that firms in high corruption areas utilize less short-term debt to mitigate liquidity and refinancing risks. Consistent with this, we find the effect is more pronounced among firms with smaller size, lower asset redeployability, and higher volatility. Our findings remain robust to the inclusion of an array of controls expected to influence debt maturity preferences as well as time, industry, and state fixed effects. Moreover, a seemingly unrelated regression approach, instrumental variables regression, propensity score matching, placebo analyses, and alternative corruption measures corroborate our findings. Altogether, our results indicate that firms alter their debt maturity choices in response to local corruption to limit refinancing risk and the uncertainty created by corrupt government officials.

We provide a joint non-parametric test to gather insights on the boundaries of applicability of Stochastic Discount Factor (SDF) models. We find that a non-trivial class of models cannot price the U.S. stock market equally weighted portfolio, implying non-monotonic SDFs, especially over the last 50/60 years in (recessionary) periods characterized by higher market volatility. Stocks responsible for this rejection mostly belong to the smallest NYSE market cap decile, are characterized by high idiosyncratic risk, and typically cannot be priced via SDF models where the aggregate level of risk aversion is bigger then 9 or 10. Excluding these stocks increases the ability to explain the cross-section of returns without impairing the ability to span the mean–variance frontier.