Author
Abstract
The study comparatively evaluated the performance of Islamic and Conventional funds that comprised of South African unit trusts listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) vis-a-vis selected market benchmark indices. Whilst the study utilised descriptive statistical analysis for the nonrisk adjusted performance analysis, several investment performance models were used for the risk adjusted performance analysis. Relevant statistical tests were performed to decipher relationships between the Islamic fund and the Conventional fund vis-a-vis the selected market benchmarks. Based on the non-risk adjusted performance analysis and absolute risk adjusted performance analysis, the empirical evidence suggests that the Conventional fund performed better than the Islamic fund. However, the relative risk adjusted performance analysis shows a mixed overall result during the entire period of the study. While the Modigliani & Modigliani measure and Jensen alpha showed that the Conventional fund performed better than the Islamic fund from a risk adjusted return perspective, the Treynor ratio showed that the Islamic fund performed better than the Conventional fund. More so, while the t-test analysis suggests that there is no statistically significant evidence to support that the Islamic fund under or outperforms the Conventional fund, the correlation analysis showed that both funds are more positively correlated and statistically significant with the South African market indices. The findings of the study imply that an investment in the Conventional fund would have offered a superlative non-risk adjusted return than the Islamic fund. Also, the relative risk adjusted performance imply that upon the diversification of unsystematic risks in some market indices, the Islamic fund may perform better than the Conventional fund.
Suggested Citation
Arshad Abdul Latiff & Salma Vanker, 2021.
"A Comparative Performance Evaluation of Islamic and Conventional Funds in South Africa,"
Acta Universitatis Danubius. OEconomica, Danubius University of Galati, issue 17(6), pages 96-114, December.
Handle:
RePEc:dug:actaec:y:2021:i:6:p:96-114
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:dug:actaec:y:2021:i:6:p:96-114. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Daniela Robu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fedanro.html .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.