Risk-Reward Trade-Off and Volatility Performance of Islamic Versus Conventional Stock Indices: Global Evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we compare the performance of Islamic stock indices (ISI) and conventional stock indices (CSI) from FTSE, DJ, MSCI, S&Ps and Jakarta series using common risk-return metrics. The sample consists of 64 ISI and CSI, and covers the period from 2002 to 2017. The majority of the stock indices are from the Pacific Rim countries’ stock markets. Additionally, we employ the GARCH-M model to examine the impact of past volatility on spot returns. Findings suggest that the ISI are less sensitive to the average market movements compared to the CSI, but surprisingly offer similar raw returns suggesting primary support for the low risk-high return paradox. On further examination, results reveal that M2, Omega, Sharpe and Treynor measures indicate that ISI underperform CSI while Jensen’s alpha and Sortino ratio put ISI ahead of CSI. Moreover, findings show that pre-crisis winners (CSI) were losers during the 2008 crisis but subsequently recovered and ended up with higher returns than ISI. Findings also show that the previous volatility of stock returns can be potentially used for predicting future returns.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".