Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia Economics and Finance 35 (2016) 359 – 367

7th International Economics & Business Management Conference, 5th & 6th October 2015

The Profitability of Islamic and Conventional Bank: Case study in

Malaysia
Hamidah Ramlana,* , Mohd Sharrizat Adnana
a
Universiti Tenaga Nasional, Muadzam Shah, 26700 Pahang, Malaysia

Abstract

This study aims to analyze the profitability in Islamic Banks and Conventional Banks in Malaysia. The study uses the period of
the year 2006 to until the year 2011. In methodology, this research using T-Test Model, Regression and Correlation.Meanwhile,
data are collected from the Bursa Malaysia and bank website in Malaysia. This study finds that Islamic Banks are more profitable
than Conventional Banks whereas Total Loan to Total Asset for Islamic bank is higher than Conventional bank. Based on
Regression test, for Conventional Banks, ROE is an influence profitability of Conventional Bank.and for Islamic Banks, ROA and
ROE are significant factor that influence profitability. Based on Correlation test, ROE is an influence profitability of Conventional
Bank and for Islamic Banks, ROA and ROE are significant relationship with independent variable which is Total Equity to Total
Asset.
© 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
© 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-reviewed under responsibility of Universiti Tenaga Nasional.
Peer-reviewed under responsibility of Universiti Tenaga Nasional
Keywords: Profitability, Conventional Banks, Islamic Banks, T-Test, regression, Malaysia

1. Introduction

The world’s banking system around the two types of banks. The one is interest-based banking system called as the
conventional banking system and the other is an interest-free banking system called as the Islamic banking system.
Islamic banks and conventional banks both create competition among themselves to satisfy customers and fulfill their
expectations and long term benefits for the economy. The conventional banks and the Islamic banks are differentiated
commonly on the basis of their goals, riba and risk sharing practices. The Islamic banking was first introduced in

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +60-17-616-7927; fax: +60-9-455-2006.

E-mail address: Hamidah@uniten.edu.my

2212-5671 © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-reviewed under responsibility of Universiti Tenaga Nasional
doi:10.1016/S2212-5671(16)00044-7
360 Hamidah Ramlan and Mohd Sharrizat Adnan / Procedia Economics and Finance 35 (2016) 359 – 367

Malaysia in 1983. Since more than 50% of the population in Malaysia is made up of Muslims, the Islamic banking
system which subscribes to Syariah principles is provided to operate alongside the conventional banking system. This
is to provide an alternative to the customers for conducting commercial banking transactions. To regulate Islamic
banking, the Islamic Banking Act 1983 was legislated and came into effect on April 7, 1983. There are 17 Islamic
banks operating in Malaysia. (Bank Negara Malaysia, 2007).
Among them are fully fledged Islamic banking institutions, namely Bank Islam (M) Bhd, Bank Muamalat (M)
Bhd and Bank Kerjasama Rakyat Malaysia Bhd. A few of them are from international Islamic banks e.g. Al Rajhi
Bank, Kuwait Finance House and some are divisions of the nine domestic groups operating in Malaysia also offer
Islamic banking products and services under the Islamic Banking Scheme (IBS banks).
The banking sector in Malaysia, practiced dual banking system, i.e. conventional and Islamic banking systems.
Malaysia has nine major domestic banks and 13 foreign banks in its conventional banking sector. Parallel to the
conventional banking sector is the Islamic banking sector. It is reported that, four stands out as market leaders
(Malayan Banking, CIMB, Public Bank and RHB Bank) and they have together captured a 70% market share in the
conventional market. (Bank Negara Malaysia, 2007). The main focus of this study is to look into whether the
performance of Islamic Banks is different from the Conventional Banks with respect to profitability. The first objective
is to analyze the profitability in Islamic Banks and Conventional Banks. The second objectiveis to identify the factors
that influence the profitability of Islamic Banks and Conventional Banks.

2. Literature review

International Association of Islamic Banks (IAIB) defined the Islamic banking as “the Islamic Bank basically
implements a new banking concept in that it adheres strictly to the rules of Islamic Shariah in the fields of finance and
other dealings. Therefore, the point is obviously clear that Islamic banking differentiate from conventional banking in
terms and conditions of its mission and objectives and duties toward society. The Islamic bank takes all these duties
and responsibilities greater than conventional banks, (Hassan & Adnan, 1998). Conventional banking is fundamentally
based on the debtor-creditor relationship between the depositors and the bank on the one hand and between the
borrowers and the bank on the other, with interest as the price of credit, that reflect the opportunity cost of money.
Bashir (2000) examined the performance of Islamic Banks in the Middle-Eastern region between 1993 and 1998.
To measure profitability, he used Non-Interest Margin (NIM), Before Tax Profit (BTP), Return on Assets (ROA), and
Return on Equity (ROE). The results confirm previous findings and show that Islamic Banks’ profitability is positively
related to equity and loans. The results also indicate that favorable macroeconomic conditions positively impact
profitability.
According to, Hassoune (2002) examined the Islamic bank profitability in an interest rate cycle. This paper states
that Islamic banks operate on a profit and loss sharing basis compared to conventional bank's operations which are
based on interest. Hassoune also compares ROE and ROA Volatility for both Islamic and conventional banks in three
GCC region, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. He states that since Islamic banking is based on profit and loss sharing,
managements have to generate sufficient returns for investors given that they are not willing accept no returns
(Hassoune, 2002).
According to Sanullah Ansari and Atiqa Rehman (2010) the performance of first Islamic bank in Pakistan i.e.
Meezan bank was compared with a group of 5 conventional banks. The study evaluated the performance in terms of
profitability, liquidity, risk, and efficiency for the period of 2003-2007. Twelve financial ratios such as Return on
Asset (ROA), Return on Equity (ROE), Loan to Deposit ratio (LDR), Loan to Assets ratio (LAR), Debt to Equity ratio
(DER), Asset Utilization (AU), and Income to Expense ratio (IER) were used as variables to assess banking
performances. T-test and F-test were used to measure the significance difference of these Performances. The study
found that MBL is less profitable, more solvent (less risky), and also less efficient comparing to the average of the 5
Conventional banks. However, there was no significant difference in liquidity between the two sets of bank (Moin,
2008). Islamic bank business development framework is not working efficiently as compared to conventional banks
(Farrooq, 2007).
In addition to the studies that had been done, Mahmood (2005), by using banks in Pakistan as a case study,
compared the financial performance of Islamic banking against conventional banking. He found that, almost in all
ratios, Islamic banks were superior to conventional banks during the four year period, from 2000 to 2004. Similar
studies in other Middle East countries were also conducted, as evident in the research of Kader, et al. (2007), where
comparative financial performance of Islamic banks and conventional banks in the UAE was also examined. The
 Hamidah Ramlan and Mohd Sharrizat Adnan / Procedia Economics and Finance 35 (2016) 359 – 367 361

findings indicated that there were no major difference between Islamic banks and conventional banks with respect to
profitability and liquidity. In Bahrain situation, Samad (2004) examined the comparative financial performance of
Islamic banks and the conventional banks during 1991-2001. The result also indicated that there was no significant
difference between Islamic banks and conventional banks with respect to profitability and liquidity.
Samad and Hassan (2000) evaluate intertemporal and interbank performance in profitability, liquidity, risk and
solvency, and community involvement of an Islamic bank (Bank Islamic Maalysia Berhad (BIMB) over 14years for
the period 1984-1997. The study is intertemporal in that it compares the performance of BIMB between the two time
period 1984-1989 and 1990-1997). To evaluate interbank performance, the study compares BIMB with two
conventional banks (one smaller and one larger than BIMB) as well as with 8 conventional banks. Using financial
ratios to measure these performance and F-test and T-test to determine their significance, the results show that BIMB
make statistically significant improvement in profitability during 1984-1997, however, this improvement when
compared with conventional banks is lagging behind due to several reasons.

3. Data and methodology

This study analyzes by using secondary data such as internet, journals and other available information. The
financial data include ROA, ROE, Total Equity to Total Assets, Total Loans to Total Assets and Deposits to Total
Assets. This set of data will be used to evaluate and to highlight the profitability Islamic Banks (Bank Islam Malaysia
Berhad, Bank Muamalat Malaysia Berhad , CIMB Islamic Bank Berhad(Commerce Tajiri Bank Berhad) and
Conventional Banks Hong Leong Bank Public Bank Berhad, Malayan Banking Berhad)

Conceptual model of relationship between Islamic Banks and Conventional Banks to bank’s profitability.

Independent Variables Dependent Variables

x Total Equity to Total Assets x Return on Asset (ROA)

x Total Loans to Total Assets x Return on Equity (ROE)
x Deposits to Total Assets

This study analyzes by using secondary data which are T-test, regression and correlation about the project of
study on profitability Islamic Banks and Conventional Banks.

Analysis Research Model

ROA = α + B1X1 + B2X2 + B3X3 + e…. (Module 1)

ROE = α + B1X1 + B2X2 + B3X3 + e…. (Module 2)

Where:

B1 = Beta
X1 = Total Equity to Total Assets
X2 = Total Loans to Total Assets
X3 = Deposits to Total Assets
e = Error term

Hypothesis for T-test model.

H1 = there is a significant difference between the profitability of Islamic Bank and Conventional Bank.
Hypothesis for Regression test.
H1 = there is significant factor that influence profitability of Islamic Bank and Conventional Bank.
Hypothesis for Correlation test.
362 Hamidah Ramlan and Mohd Sharrizat Adnan / Procedia Economics and Finance 35 (2016) 359 – 367

H1 = there is significant relationship between the profitability of Islamic Bank and Conventional Bank.

4. Results and findings

4.1 Results for Independent T-test

Table 1: Comparison of mean between Islamic and Conventional Banks
Group Statistics
Bank Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
TLtoTA Conventional 57.786056 8.3181529 1.9606074
Islamic 76.094272 26.3044703 6.2000231
DtoTA Conventional 83.993578 8.1805193 1.9281669
Islamic 83.268672 5.6241002 1.3256131
TEtoTA Conventional 6.636167 1.0866795 .2561328
Islamic 6.375967 3.5868261 .8454230

From the table above, it show the comparison mean between Conventional and Islamic banks in Malaysia. The
Total Loan to Total Asset for Islamic bank is higher than Conventional bank. The mean of Total Loan to Total Asset
for Islamic is 76.094272 while for Conventional bank the mean is 57.786056.
Besides, Deposit to Total Asset and Total Equity to Total Asset for Islamic bank is lower than Conventional bank
regarding to the comparison of their mean. The mean of Deposit to Total Asset for Islamic bank is 83.268672 while
for Conventional bank the mean is 83.993578. The Total Equity to Total Asset of Islamic bank is 6.375967 while for
Conventional bank the mean is 6.636167. So, we can conclude that Islamic bank have better growth for Total Loan to
Total Asset rather than Conventional bank.

Table 2: independent sample T-test

Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for
Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means

Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error

F Sig. t df tailed) Difference Difference
TLtoTA Equal variances 41.426 .000 -2.816 34 .008 -18.3082167 6.5026355
assumed
Equal variances -2.816 20.366 .011 -18.3082167 6.5026355
not assumed
DtoTA Equal variances 3.243 .081 .310 34 .759 .7249056 2.3398884
assumed
Equal variances .310 30.136 .759 .7249056 2.3398884
not assumed
TEtoTA Equal variances 13.201 .001 .295 34 .770 .2602000 .8833709
assumed
Equal variances .295 20.095 .771 .2602000 .8833709
not assumed

The independent T - test is used to compare the mean score of two groups between Islamic and Conventional bank.
The results from the table above show that the Total Loan to Total Asset for Islamic bank is higher than Conventional
bank and significant at 10 % with means difference -18.3082167.
Deposit to Total Asset and Total Equity to Total Asset is no significant difference between the means for Islamic
and Conventional bank. Overall, we can conclude that only Total Loan to Total Asset has significant difference
between the means of the two groups which is Islamic and Conventional bank for profitability. Based on the
hypothesis, H1 is accepted but inconclusive because from the three variables there is only one significant.
 Hamidah Ramlan and Mohd Sharrizat Adnan / Procedia Economics and Finance 35 (2016) 359 – 367 363

4.2 Results for Regression

Table 3: Conventional ROA
ANOVAb
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression .293 3 .098 1.331 .304a
Residual 1.028 14 .073
Total 1.321 17
a. Predictors: (Constant), TEtoTA, TLtoTA, DtoTA
b. Dependent Variable: ROA
c. The estimated R square is . .222
Coefficientsa
Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 1.055 .740 1.426 .176
TLtoTA .001 .010 .037 .127 .900
DtoTA .013 .013 .379 .961 .353
TEtoTA -.160 .099 -.623 -1.609 .130
a. Dependent Variable: ROA

Table 3 show the estimated R square is .222, indicating that 22.2 % changes in ROA (dependent) is due to changing
in independent variable are reliable. However, the result shows there is no significant factor that influences
profitability measuring ROA with independent variables for Conventional bank.

Table 4: Conventional ROE

ANOVAb
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 343.030 3 114.343 6.970 .004a
Residual 229.674 14 16.405
Total 572.704 17
a. Predictors: (Constant), TEtoTA, TLtoTA, DtoTA
b. Dependent Variable: ROE
c. The estimated R square is . .599
Coefficientsa
Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 31.540 11.061 2.851 .013
TLtoTA .119 .145 .170 .818 .427
DtoTA .088 .201 .124 .439 .667
TEtoTA -4.238 1.486 -.793 -2.853 .013
a. Dependent Variable: ROE

Table 4 show the estimated R square is .599, indicating that 59.9 % changes in ROE (dependent) is due to changing
in independent variable are reliable. For ROE there is a significant factor that influences profitability with independent
variable which is Total Equity to Total Asset. Only Total Equity to Total Asset shows negative effect and significant
effect to bank’s profitability with beta coefficient -4.238 and significant at level 0.013. Therefore, H1 is accepted only
for ROE because there is a significant factor that influences profitability with independent variable which is Total
Equity to Total Asset.
364 Hamidah Ramlan and Mohd Sharrizat Adnan / Procedia Economics and Finance 35 (2016) 359 – 367

Table 5: Islamic ROA

ANOVAb
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 1.949 3 .650 2.958 .069a
Residual 3.074 14 .220
Total 5.023 17
a. Predictors: (Constant), TEtoTA, DtoTA, TLtoTA
b. Dependent Variable: ROA
c. The estimated R square is .388
Coefficientsa
Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 2.272 2.513 .904 .381
TLtoTA .006 .008 .308 .811 .431
DtoTA -.016 .037 -.160 -.425 .678
TEtoTA -.082 .034 -.539 -2.428 .029
a. Dependent Variable: ROA

Table 5 show the estimated R square is .388, indicating that 38.8 % changes in ROA (dependent) is due to changing
in independent variable are reliable. For ROA, there is significant factor that influence profitability with independent
variable which is Total Equity to Total Asset. Only Total Equity to Total Asset shows negative effect and significant
effect to bank’s profitability with beta coefficient -0.082 and significant at level 0.029.
Table 6: Islamic ROE
ANOVAb
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 252.885 3 84.295 4.293 .024a
Residual 274.920 14 19.637
Total 527.805 17
a. Predictors: (Constant), TEtoTA, DtoTA, TLtoTA
b. Dependent Variable: ROE
c. The estimated R square is .479
Coefficientsa
Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 8.297 23.766 .349 .732
TLtoTA -.048 .074 -.225 -.643 .531
DtoTA .129 .345 .130 .372 .715
TEtoTA -1.115 .318 -.718 -3.504 .004
a. Dependent Variable: ROE

Table 6 show the estimated R square is .479, indicating that 47.9 % changes in ROE (dependent) is due to changing
in independent variable are reliable. For ROE, there is significant factor that influence profitability with independent
variable which is Total Equity to Total Asset except Deposit to Total Asset and Total Loan to Total Asset. While only
Total Equity to Total Asset shows negative effect and significant effect to bank’s profitability with beta coefficient -
1.115 and significant at level 0.04. Therefore, H1 is accepted for both dependent because there is significant factor
that influence profitability with independent variable which is Total Equity to Total Asset. The result supported by
previous studies by Samad and Hassan (2000)
 Hamidah Ramlan and Mohd Sharrizat Adnan / Procedia Economics and Finance 35 (2016) 359 – 367 365

4.3 Results for Correlation

Table 7: Conventional ROA
Correlations
ROA TLtoTA DtoTA TEtoTA
ROA Pearson Correlation 1 .255 -.043 -.367
Sig. (2-tailed) .308 .864 .134
N 18 18 18 18
TLtoTA Pearson Correlation .255 1 .265 -.188
Sig. (2-tailed) .308 .287 .455
N 18 18 18 18
DtoTA Pearson Correlation -.043 .265 1 .694**
Sig. (2-tailed) .864 .287 .001
N 18 18 18 18
TEtoTA Pearson Correlation -.367 -.188 .694** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .134 .455 .001
N 18 18 18 18
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

For the Conventional correlation between independent variables and ROA, there is no significant relationship.
However, the correlation tests between independent variables shows that Total Equity to Total Asset and Deposit to
Total Asset have positive correlation at 1% significant level (.694).

Table 8: Conventional ROE

Correlations
ROE TLtoTA DtoTA TEtoTA
ROE Pearson Correlation 1 .352 -.381 -.739**
Sig. (2-tailed) .152 .119 .000
N 18 18 18 18
TLtoTA Pearson Correlation .352 1 .265 -.188
Sig. (2-tailed) .152 .287 .455
N 18 18 18 18
DtoTA Pearson Correlation -.381 .265 1 .694**
Sig. (2-tailed) .119 .287 .001
N 18 18 18 18
TEtoTA Pearson Correlation -.739** -.188 .694** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .455 .001
N 18 18 18 18
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

For the Conventional correlation between independent variables and ROE, only Total Equity to Total Asset has a
significant relationship. There is a negative relationship between ROE (dependent) and Total Equity to Total Asset
(independent) at 1% significant level (-.739). It shows that Total Equity to Total Asset have relationship with
profitability. The correlation test between independent variables shows that Total Equity to Total Asset and Deposit
to Total Asset have positive correlation at 1% significant level (.694).
366 Hamidah Ramlan and Mohd Sharrizat Adnan / Procedia Economics and Finance 35 (2016) 359 – 367

Table 9: Islamic ROA

Correlations
ROA TLtoTA DtoTA TEtoTA
ROA Pearson Correlation 1 .249 .050 -.592**
Sig. (2-tailed) .318 .842 .010
N 18 18 18 18
TLtoTA Pearson Correlation .249 1 .813** -.132
Sig. (2-tailed) .318 .000 .601
N 18 18 18 18
DtoTA Pearson Correlation .050 .813** 1 .074
Sig. (2-tailed) .842 .000 .772
N 18 18 18 18
TEtoTA Pearson Correlation -.592** -.132 .074 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .010 .601 .772
N 18 18 18 18
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

For the Islamic correlation between independent variables and ROA, Total Equity to Total Asset has a significant
relationship. There is a negative relationship between ROE (dependent) and Total Equity to Total Asset (independent)
at 1% significant level (-.592). It shows that Total Equity to Total Asset have relationship with profitability. The
correlation test between independent variables shows that Deposit to Total Asset and Total Loan to Total Asset have
positive correlation at 1% significant level (.813).

Table 10: Islamic ROE

Correlations
ROE TLtoTA DtoTA TEtoTA
ROE Pearson Correlation 1 -.025 -.106 -.679**
Sig. (2-tailed) .921 .674 .002
N 18 18 18 18
TLtoTA Pearson Correlation -.025 1 .813** -.132
Sig. (2-tailed) .921 .000 .601
N 18 18 18 18
DtoTA Pearson Correlation -.106 .813** 1 .074
Sig. (2-tailed) .674 .000 .772
N 18 18 18 18
TEtoTA Pearson Correlation -.679** -.132 .074 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .002 .601 .772
N 18 18 18 18
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

For the Islamic correlation between independent variables and ROE, only Total Equity to Total Asset has a
significant relationship. There is a negative relationship between ROE (dependent) and Total Equity to Total Asset
(independent) at 1% significant level (-.679). It shows that Total Equity to Total Asset have relationship with
profitability. The correlation test between independent variables shows that Deposit to Total Asset and Total Loan to
Total Asset have positive correlation at 1% significant level (.813).

5.0 Conclusions and Recommendation

Based on T-test model, Islamic Banks is more profitable than Conventional Banks whereas Total Loan to Total
Asset for Islamic bank is higher than Conventional bank and significant at level 10 %. H1 is accepted but inconclusive
because from the three variables there is only one significant.
Based on Regression test, for Conventional Banks, H1 is accepted only for ROE because the result shows there is
no significant factor that influence profitability measuring ROA with independent variables and for ROE there is a
significant factor that influence profitability with independent variable which is Total Equity to Total Asset with
 Hamidah Ramlan and Mohd Sharrizat Adnan / Procedia Economics and Finance 35 (2016) 359 – 367 367

significant at level 1 %. For Islamic Banks, H1 is accepted because both dependent variables are significant factor that
influence profitability with independent variable which is Total Equity to Total Asset with significant at level 5 %.
Based on Correlation test, for Conventional Banks, H1 is accepted only for ROE because the result shows there is
no significant relationship between the profitability of ROA with all independent variables and for ROE there is a
significant relationship between the profitability of ROE with Total Equity to Total Asset at 1 % significant level. For
Islamic Banks, H1 is accepted because both dependent variables are significant relationship with independent variable
which is Total Equity to Total Asset with significant at a level 1 %.

References
Abid Usman., Muhammad Kashif Khan., 2012. Evaluating the Financial Performance of Islamic and Conventional Banks of Pakistan: A
Comparative Analysis.
Alkassim, F.A., 2005. The Profitability of Islamic and Conventional Banking in the GCC Countries: A Comparative Study.
Basir., 2000. Determinants of profitability in Islamic banks: Some evidence from the Middle East Islamic Economic Studies 11, 31–57
Bank Negara Malaysia, 2007, Shariah Resolutions in Islamic Finance, Kuala Lumpur: Bank Negara Malaysia.
Fauziah Hanim Tafri., Zarinah Hamid., Ahamed Kameel Mydin Meera., Mohd Azmi Omar., 2010. The Impact of Financial Risks on Profitability
of Malaysian Commercial Banks: 1996-2005.
Farooq, Muhammad., 2007. Forecasts of Future Profitability based on Disaggregated Earnings: A Comparative Analysis of I slamic and
Conventional Banks. Journal of Managerial Sciences Volume VII Number 2 256.
Hasan., Adnan., 1998. Optimal Shari’ah Governance Model In Islamic Finance Regulation.
Hassan., Bashir., 2004. Determinants of Islamic Banking Profitability.
A. Hassoune., 2002. Islamic banks' profitability in an interest rate cycle, International Journal of Islamic Financial Services 4, 1–13.
Kader, et al., 2007. Comparative Study on Performance of Islamic Banks and Conventional Banks in GCC region.
Mahmood., 2005. The Effects of the Global Crisis on Islamic and Conventional Banks: A Comparative Study.
Mian Muhammad Ashraf., Zia-ur-Rehman., 2011. The Performance Analysis of Islamic and Conventional Banks: The Pakistan’s Perspective.
Rosnia Masruki., Norhazlina Ibrahim., Elmirina Osman., Hishamuddin Abdul Wahab., 2007. Financial Performance of Malaysian Islamic Banks
Versus Conventional Banks.
Samad, A., 200. Islamic banking and finance in theory and practice: The experience of Malaysia and Bahrain. The American Journal of Islamic
Social Sciences 22(2), 69-86.
Sanaullah Ansari., Khalil-ur-Rehman., 2011. Comparative Financial Performance of existing Islamic Banks and Contemporary Conventional Banks
in Pakistan.
Sanaullah Ansari., Atiqa Rehman., 2010. Financial Performance of Islamic and Conventional Banks in Pakistan: A Comparative Study.