It’s all About Branding

Quote from Dr Abdul Raman Saad, partner & founder of ARSA Lawyers.

“I would like to draw attention to the use of terminology in our industry. In Europe, especially in Germany, they do not use the term ‘Islamic finance’ or ‘Islamic banking’. Instead, they use ‘Shariah finance’ and ‘Shariah banking’.Following the 11th September tragedy, the term ‘Islam’ sometimes gives people the wrong impression. The term ‘Shariah’, however, is more neutral and could appeal to a wider consumer base. I recommend that we ponder on this and apply the term ‘Shariah finance’ instead of ‘Islamic finance’. Shariah has a more universal meaning and thus could embrace both Muslims and non-Muslims.”

Some people would disagree and ask why are we so afraid of the name Islam? I personally prefer the name Shariah Finance/Banking not because I’m afraid of the name Islam but like Dr Abdul Raman, I’m for a brand name which is acceptable to all. After all, IBF is for all regardless of religious or political belief. However, at the moment, Shariah based finance and banking is globally known as IBF, so in the name of uniformity, I shall refer to it as Islamic Banking and Finance, for now.

we have moved

to http://relook-islamicbankingfinance.blogspot.com/

Islamic Banking in Singapore

Reuters reported that DBS, Singapore and south East Asia’s largest bank is scaling down on its Islamic banking operations, signalling the city-state’s efforts to promote Shariah banking are not bearing fruit.

DBS’ Islamic Bank of Asia (IBA), Singapore’s only wholly-owned full licensed Islamic bank, suffered a loss of US$77.1 million (RM256 million) in 2009 after making specific allowances on debt owned by customers in the Gulf region. The bank had US$725 million in assets as at end-2009, including US$453 million in payments due from non-bank customers. A source had earlier told Reuters the Islamic unit of DBS planned to get out of the lending business entirely. (Reuters; May 24, 2010)

What struck me was the statement on “lending business”. I have argued in past and still maintain my stand – Islamic banking is not about lending. Islamic banking is all about putting resources together and sharing risks and rewards in an economically beneficial business venture. Any lending should be kept at a minimum and should only be for exceptional cases and given interest free.

So, given my stand, I’m not surprised that Islamic banking is not making much headway in the non-traditional markets. While the traditional markets (read Muslim countries) have the added advantage of having religious obligation as a marketing tool, the non traditional markets needs more than that to push Islamic banking. Focus has to be on the uniqueness of system, the part that differentiates it from conventional banking. One of it is that it promotes risk and reward sharing instead of just plain borrowing and lending.

It is often lamented that Islamic finance lack knowledgeable practitioners. I want to add that the industry also lacks knowledgeable investors. By knowledgeable investors I mean investors who appreciate what Islamic finance stands for. For as long as investors demand a solution that mimics conventional products, Islamic finance will not take off, even in traditional markets. 

Islamic Finance Resists Equity Shift, May Stunt Growth

Shariah finance has been labelled “copycat” for its reliance on debt funding

Reuters – KUALA LUMPUR, April 27 — When Kuwait Finance House Malaysia helped develop a US$1.3 billion (RM4.1 billion) real estate project in the country in 2005 as a partner in the deal, Islamic equity property ventures were a rarity.

Five years on, the bank is embarking on its fourth building project using a similar equity concept but few others in the industry want to follow the same path, reflecting Islamic finance’s slow and difficult shift away from debt instruments.

Debt funding’s dominance of Shariah finance has earned the US$1 trillion industry the tag of “copycat” and limited its growth as critics question its ability to offer a fairer way of sharing risks and rewards that truly distinguishes it from conventional banking.

“Profit-sharing or equity structures are the true way of doing Islamic financing,” said Siti Mariam Mohd Desa, Kuwait Finance Malaysia’s real estate advisory director.

“It is a different concept because if you were to give out straight loans, you may as well go to a conventional bank.”

As the global financial system emerges from the debt crisis and banks shy away from assuming added risks, practitioners want Islamic finance to rely more on partnership structures and less on straight financing which they say has created a brand of finance which is Shariah compliant in form, but not in spirit.

They say equity financing such as musharaka and mudaraba are closer to the Shariah’s aim of ensuring gains and losses are shared equitably and a shift back to it would help banks win new business beyond its traditional markets.

While Islamic finance has flourished in Muslim markets such as the Middle East and Malaysia, many non-Muslims are unconvinced, saying the industry differs from conventional banking only in name.

“We cannot add value in markets which are mimics of conventional markets. At the moment, it’s difficult to see the value-added,” said Safdar Alam, head of Islamic structuring at JP Morgan in Bahrain.

“It’s a real opportunity, with the increased awareness globally of Islamic finance, to demonstrate this value and the difference and benefits. This is a chance that we might miss if we don’t do this well quite quickly.”

But banks’ reluctance to bear the risk of projects funded, companies’ unwillingness to share profits and scarcity of banking capital make equity financing an unappealing proposition.

The recent property slump in the Gulf, where equity financing is more common, badly hit Islamic firms such as Bahrain’s Gulf Finance House and could compound banks’ fears of becoming project partners.

Kuwait Finance Malaysia, which uses the musharaka equity structure to develop real estate, had a non-performing financing level of 6.73 per cent in September, more than thrice the industry average.

Its parent Kuwait Finance House, the Gulf state’s top Islamic bank, posted a 24 per cent drop in net profit in 2009 to 118.74 million dinars.

Equity financing models were born out of a belief in Islam that the financier must share the risks if he wants the rewards and that profits should be earned through enterprise.

While equity funding is commonly associated with higher returns, bankers say it may not necessarily be more profitable than debt as the latter allows for higher leverage.

Traditionally, popular Islamic debt-based instruments such as istisna and murabaha have been likened to interest-based loans where banks take limited risks and are guaranteed a return.

But as Islamic finance grew beyond traditional roles such as agriculture financing to funding government budgets and billion dollar real estate projects, some banks began leaning more towards debt instruments to limit their risks.

As banks’ capital grows scarce, they will be wary of parting with large sums to back equity ventures, said Mohammad Faiz Azmi, PriceWaterhouseCoopers’s global Islamic finance leader.

“On the demand side, the issue are is there enough corporates who are essentially willing to give up the upside?” Faiz said, referring to profit-sharing structures.

“The reality is that the people that would want to have equity forms of financing are usually the ones that you want to avoid lending money to anyway.”

Some practitioners say the push for more Islamic equity financing is ill-conceived.

“From the shariah’s perspective, there is no such evidence to support (the view) that Islamic banks or whoever wants to do business should do profit-sharing more than debt-based,” said Shariah scholar Aznan Hasan, who advises Barclays Capital London and Malaysia’s stock exchange operator Bursa Malaysia.

“Whether it is debt or equity that suits you better, it depends on commercial and business decisions, not Shariah matters.” — Reuters

Did She Say That?

http://www.financeasia.com/article.aspx?CIaNID=118130
Dubai World creditors await court definition of Sukuk
At issue with Nakheel's sukuk is how a court will handle the restructuring, note observers familiar with Islamic finance. Much depends on the structure of the instrument. A court could declare the instrument the equivalent of a conventional bond with repayment terms comparable to international norms, or it could find the sukuk to be structured as either a mudharabah (profit-sharing) product or a musyarakah (a partnership involving profit- and loss-sharing) product, both of which would likely involve the creditors sharing some of the issuer's losses.

Creditors stand to benefit if a sukuk is declared essentially the same as a conventional bond, whereas the issuer stands to benefit if it is defined first and foremost as an instrument that is compliant with Shar'iah (Islamic law) -- and thus subject to the idea of profit-sharing.

"The whole presentation of the structure is one where investors are meant to receive a share of the profits and not interest on debts - two very different obligations," said Khalid Howladar, a senior credit officer at Moody's. "It could be argued that, because an issuer is not generating profits, it should not have to pay sukuk investors."

Not everyone agrees: "This is a credit issue, not an Islamic issue," said Raja Teh Maimunah, global head of Islamic markets at Bursa Malaysia. "A sukuk is a bond and issuers need to pay back the money they borrowed."

The quandary faced by the holders of Nakheel’s Sukuk has been well documented and discussed in recent weeks. At this juncture, how they will move forward with the restructuring depends on how the courts define this instrument called Sukuk.

In the above article, the global head of Islamic markets at Bursa Malaysia claims that a Sukuk is a bond. I find it appalling that a person of such stature as Raja Teh with all her experience can come up with such a statement which IMHO seriously undermines the principles of Islamic finance.

In case she forgot, a Sukuk is defined as follows:

“Certificates of equal value representing after closing subscription, receipt of the value of the certificates and putting it to use as planned, common title to shares and rights in tangible assets, usufructs and services, or equity of a given project or equity of a special investment activity” by Accounting and Auditing Organisation for Islamic Financial Institutions (AAOIFI, Standard 17).

“A document or certificate that represents the value of an asset” by The Securities Commission (SC).

A bond is defined as a fixed interest financial asset. Bonds pay the bearer a fixed amount a specified end date. A discount bond pays the bearer only at the ending date, while a coupon bond pays the bearer a fixed amount over a specified interval (month, year, etc.) as well as paying a fixed amount at the end date.

Click here for a comparison between Sukuks and Bonds.

If Sukuk is a bond, why bother with the Shariah structures & approvals, legal documentations etc.? Why bother calling it a Sukuk?

Let’s put it this way, Sukuks and bonds are like fish and chicken, they are both sources of food and can be cooked the same way but they will NEVER look the same, taste the same, they will never be the same.

It is a credit issue, so going forward, let’s use Nakheel/Dubai World as an example and learn from it. The first and most important lesson to remember is to structure a Sukuk as a Sukuk and not as a bond. And that includes evaluating the credit from the Sukuk perspective and not the bond perspective.

For as long as the Islamic finance industry is lead by people with a conventional worldview on Islamic finance, it will never break away from being a conventional product with an Arabic name.

Saxony-Anhalt Sukuk Ijarah

In 2004, a €100 million Sukuk, structured as a Sukuk Ijarah, was issued in the federal state of Saxony-Anhalt in Germany with The Federal Republic of Germany guaranteeing the debts of Saxony-Anhalt. The underlying transactions are a number of buildings owned by the Ministry of Finance. The master lease was sold for 100 years to a special purpose vehicle, incorporated in the Netherlands for tax reasons. The SPV in turn rented the properties back to the Ministry of Finance for five years. The certificate holders receive a variable rent benchmarked to the EURIBOR over the leased period and the Sukuk is listed on the Luxembourg Stock Exchange. Incidentally, as of July 2007, the Saxony-Anhalt Sukuk remains the only sovereign Sukuk from a non-Islamic country to have tapped the market.

I am of the opinion that the Saxony-Anhalt is one of the best examples of how a Sukuk Ijarah should be structured, apart from one element – determination of the rental rates. Why can’t the issuer set the returns based on the actual, prevailing, market determined rental rates? Wouldn’t that have made it more authentic?

Wa'd

Wa’d is a unilateral promise and is considered as a voluntary contract. Al-Zarqa’ opines that it does not convey any binding effect on the promisor hence they are not obliged to fulfil the promise and will not be liable in a case where they fail to fulfil the promise made to the promisee.

The BNM Shariah Council in its 49th meeting held on 28th April 2005 / 19th Rabiul Awal 1426 resolved that an Islamic banking institution is allowed to enter into forward foreign currency transaction based on unileteral binding promise (binding only on the promisor) and the compensation for breaching of promise could be implemented. This permissibility is only applicable for currency hedging purposes. Such a transaction may be arranged between the Islamic banking institution and its customers, or between the Islamic banking institutions, or between the Islamic banking institutions and conventional banking institutions.

The fatwa of Islamic Bank of Jordan (Jordan Islamic Bank, al-Fatawa al-Syar’iyyah, 2001, v2, p.29) states that the bilateral promise made in currency exchange where it bonds both parties to the contract, is generally prohibited (umum al-nahyi) as it amounts to bai` al-kali’ bi al-kali’ (sale of debt with debt). However, if the promise is made unilaterally i.e. binding only on one party who made the promise, then the transaction is allowed.

Ibn Hazm (Ibn Hazm, al-Muhalla, Dar al-Turath, Cairo, V.9, p.583) has also allowed the promise made to sell and purchase of currency with an agreed price on the same day followed by actual conclusion of the contract afterward. The parties is also given the choice to proceed or not to proceed with the agreement made and thus do not conclude the actual contract. This is permissible according to Ibn Hazm as the promise is not binding on the parties.

Having said all that, it is clear that Wa'd is a non-binding unilateral promise meaning that in the event the promisor decides to rescind the promise, the promisee is in no position to demand compensation. In reality however, most banks demand compensation for breach of promise. How is it non-binding then?

Moving Away from Tawarruq?

Twenty-six Islamic banks signed off on a standardised Wakalah deposit agreement, which some bankers said could help the industry reduce its reliance on the controversial Commodity Murabahah structure, Reuters reports. “Besides cost and resource savings, the adoption of the standardised Wakalah placement agreement would promote transparency, consistency, operational efficiencies and robustness in Islamic deposit placement transactions,” said the Association of Islamic Banking Institutions Malaysia, which launched the template agreement. “In six months’ time, all the banks will be using the Wakalah,” said one Malaysian Islamic banker. “It has fewer issues than the Commodity Murabahah.”

Wakalah is an agency structure where a depositor or investor authorises an agent (the bank) to invest his funds in Shariah compliant assets or businesses.

Finding alternatives to replace controversial instruments is a step in the right direction and it augurs well for the industry.

Organised Tawarruq not a perfect structure

In its basic form, Tawarruq is an asset sale to a purchaser with deferred payment terms. The purchaser then sells the asset to a third party to get funds. Organised Tawarruq is similar although the transactions are executed through banks.

Reuters reports Shariah adviser Rusni Hassan saying that Organised Tawarruq as it is currently practised is not ideal from the Shariah's viewpoint.

According to the report (Nov 4, 2009), Rusni opines that organised Tawarruq should avoid specifying beforehand the parties' obligations under the contract although this protects their legal rights, backing a divisive Fiqh Academy ruling that had thrown the industry into turmoil. She objects to organised Tawarruq because the two contracts are in one when they should be independent of each other.

I agree with her views but I foresee it will further divide the industry especially when respected scholars like Nizam Yaqubi and Akram Laldin see no harm in organised Tawarruq.

Other scholars who disapprove of Tawarruq include Muhammad Nejatullah Siddiqi and Monzer Kahf.

Siddiqi views Tawarruq to be identical to interest based loans both from the functional and macroeconomic perspective. His justification for categorising Tawarruq as non-compliant is due to its harms (mafasid) being greater that its benefits (masalih). He lists;
1) creation of excessive debt;
2) exchange of money with more money in future, which is unfair in view of the risk and uncertainty involved;
3) debt proliferation, which is liken to gambling and speculation;
4) inflationary expansion;
5) inequity in the distribution of income and wealth;
6) greater instability in the economy; and
7) inefficient allocation of resources.
as the many harms of Tawarruq.

Kahf opines that Tawarruq is worse than the practice of interest-based loan legally and economically.

I have to disagree (with apologies) with Sheikhs Yaqubi and Akram on the permissibility of Tawarruq. Being of limited knowledge, I depend on the views and opinions of the scholars and in this case the arguments presented by Siddiqi make more sense to me.

Cost of Funds

When determining the interest rate to charge borrowers, one of the factors to consider is the cost of funds, i.e. the price the bank has to pay to the owners of the funds, who are either depositors or lenders for using the funds.

On the other hand, a partnership or trade based (Islamic) financial transaction should not have a cost of funds simply because the owners of the funds are not lending or selling the funds and therefore should not expect any consideration for the transaction. Funds are monetary capital and Shariah stipulates that money cannot be traded because it is not a commodity, it is merely a medium of exchange.

So, technically, under Shariah terms, capital has no cost. Surely this is a concept which traditional conventional bankers may find difficult to grasp.

Why is money devoid of any cost?
This is because the owners of money cannot expect to earn more money without undertaking some form of economic activity. Shariah stioulates that owners of money cannot trade the money for profit. Any exchange of money which is not equal in amount constitutes riba.

When determining the profits to be charged to customers (‘profits charged’, oxymoron?) for a Murabahah or Istisna transaction, banks cannot base it on the cost of funds simply because there is no cost to start of with. The cost of funds arises when Shariah based banks operate in an identical manner to a conventional banks, i.e. as an intermediary between lenders and borrowers.