{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0175561797752809, 'fraction_numerical': 0.011938202247191011, 'mean_word_length': 5.418918918918919, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Asset Securitization and Bank Risk: Do Religiosity or Ownership Structure Matter?

We test the impact of religiosity and ownership structure on the risk profile of banks, which issued securitisation. We employ GMM estimation using unique database on asset securitization of 672 commercial banks (4889 year-observations) in 22 countries (from 2003-2012), which have dual banking system. We find that banks with higher securitisation activity have consistently shown a riskier profile by being significantly less adequately capitalised and offering higher ratio of net loans to total assets. Controlling for bank type (Islamic and conventional banks), we find that although Islamic banks, in general, show a conservative approach towards risk by keeping higher reserves and more liquidity, banks involved in new issuance of asset securitization as still exposed to a higher risk profile . Controlling for a country religiosity shows different risk profile of banks in countries with different religiosity thresholds. Controlling for different types of bank ownership highlights an additional exposure to credit risk in addition to capital adequacy and liquidity risks. Our results emphasize the importance of identifying the impact of bank type and the religiosity / culture factors in global banking studies. Our results are of importance to both local and international regulators as well as different stakeholders in banks.