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.

Highlights

  • 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

  • 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)

  • 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

Read more

Summary

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. It is engaged in the services of the board, the remuneration and the control of the auditors’ works”. 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

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call