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.

According to the existing literature, institutional investors have a significant impact on the litigation risk of publicly traded companies. This should be particularly true after the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) of 1995 that encourages institutional investors to serve as lead plaintiffs in securities class actions. Using a large sample of securities class action lawsuits, we distinguish between different types of institutional investors based on their investment horizon and ownership structure and find that both factors significantly affect a firm's litigation risk. Short-term institutional investors are more likely to monitor firms through ex-post litigation, whereas long-term institutional investors prefer to monitor firms internally. Further, we document a nonlinear relation between the stock ownership of the largest institutional investor and a firm's litigation risk. In particular, as measures of long-term (short-term) ownership increase, the likelihood of litigation declines (increases). In summary, shareholder litigation may be an effective external monitoring device for short-term investors that serves as a substitute for internal corporate governance mechanisms.