A not so comprehensive review on the above article which appeared in the May/June issue of the Islamic Banker.
The title itself is misleading – AAOIFI did not ban Sukuk Musharakah, it is banning the current model of Sukuk Musharakah which has the elements of purchase undertaking (PU) and guarantees.
The gist of this article is based on the views of one mazhab overriding the views of the other mazhabs.
Badlisyah (BAG) – arguments for the Malaysian market player from the Malaysian (Shafie) perspective.
P.10, Col 1, para 3, line 4 – contradiction, Musharakah is NOT a debt instrument. It should not be treated as such as it defeats the purpose of structuring a Sukuk based on the principles of Musharakah.
P.10, Col 1, para 3, lines 6 to 10 – the Malaysian investors, market, legal and regulatory framework unfortunately does not support the Musharakah model. It is still a debt based market with debt based regulatory framework.
My opinion on the PU – giving debt characteristics to an equity based instrument. This is to satisfy the demands of the investing public who wants an “Islamic” structure but also wants the features of a debt.
My opinion on AAOIFI’s announcement - it should not create a panic, there should be a consensus on the “effective” date as in anything issued prior to the announcement should be given an exemption from the ruling.
Permissibility of debt trading – it is true that differing mazhabs have differing views, this is where the industry needs a respected global body to lay down the law as to which mazhab prevails. Alternatively, allow the practices of all mazhabs and leave it to the market to decide whether they want to subscribe to a certain issuance or not. In this case, each Sukuk issuance has to come with an additional label – that of the approving mazhab.
True sale versus Beneficial sale – BAG argues that it is merely an accounting issue. He contends that a beneficial sale is as good as a true sale (despite the asset still remaining in the balance sheet of the seller). The purpose of a sale in an Islamic transaction is to give absolute rights of the asset to the buyer (i.e. Sukuk investors). My question is; does beneficial sale accord absolute rights to the buyer when challenged in court, given that the name on the title remains under that of the seller?
My opinion on the trading of banking stocks on the GCC stock markets - the reason why they are traded at a discount is due to the fact that stock valuation is done based on conventional norms. If stock valuation is done with Shariah considerations, it may yield different prices.
BAG uses the argument that the PU is merely a Wa’d (promise) which is not legally binding. If the PU is put to test and challenged in court, would the holder of the undertaking be compelled, by law, to honour the undertaking? If they are, then it is no longer a Wa’d but a legally binding contract instead.
Loan/top-up/liquidity arrangement in case of shortfall in profits – in equity based structures, are the managers allowed to do the same? BAG again argues that this arrangement is merely a Wa’d and therefore not legally binding. Again, will it stand if challenged in court?
A guarantee by a third (non-related) party is seen as an act of benevolence, it should not have any strings attached or payments charged.
The recurring argument of substance over form – different mazhabs have different opinions on the subject and all their opinions are valid from the Shariah perspective. Again, to overcome this obstacle, label a product based on the approving mazhab and let the market decide.
P.14, Col 1, para 6, last 2 lines – oxymoron, Musharakah is not a fixed income instrument.
My conclusions –
Musharakah = equity. Therefore, if we choose to structure a Sukuk based on the principles of Musharakah, we should also adhere to the principles that govern equity structures.
Shariah parameters are split between the 4 main mazhabs. Any stand or ruling must be accompanied by the basis, i.e. which mazhab it was based on. At the end of the day, it is for the market to decide which is best suited for their needs.
The title itself is misleading – AAOIFI did not ban Sukuk Musharakah, it is banning the current model of Sukuk Musharakah which has the elements of purchase undertaking (PU) and guarantees.
The gist of this article is based on the views of one mazhab overriding the views of the other mazhabs.
Badlisyah (BAG) – arguments for the Malaysian market player from the Malaysian (Shafie) perspective.
P.10, Col 1, para 3, line 4 – contradiction, Musharakah is NOT a debt instrument. It should not be treated as such as it defeats the purpose of structuring a Sukuk based on the principles of Musharakah.
P.10, Col 1, para 3, lines 6 to 10 – the Malaysian investors, market, legal and regulatory framework unfortunately does not support the Musharakah model. It is still a debt based market with debt based regulatory framework.
My opinion on the PU – giving debt characteristics to an equity based instrument. This is to satisfy the demands of the investing public who wants an “Islamic” structure but also wants the features of a debt.
My opinion on AAOIFI’s announcement - it should not create a panic, there should be a consensus on the “effective” date as in anything issued prior to the announcement should be given an exemption from the ruling.
Permissibility of debt trading – it is true that differing mazhabs have differing views, this is where the industry needs a respected global body to lay down the law as to which mazhab prevails. Alternatively, allow the practices of all mazhabs and leave it to the market to decide whether they want to subscribe to a certain issuance or not. In this case, each Sukuk issuance has to come with an additional label – that of the approving mazhab.
True sale versus Beneficial sale – BAG argues that it is merely an accounting issue. He contends that a beneficial sale is as good as a true sale (despite the asset still remaining in the balance sheet of the seller). The purpose of a sale in an Islamic transaction is to give absolute rights of the asset to the buyer (i.e. Sukuk investors). My question is; does beneficial sale accord absolute rights to the buyer when challenged in court, given that the name on the title remains under that of the seller?
My opinion on the trading of banking stocks on the GCC stock markets - the reason why they are traded at a discount is due to the fact that stock valuation is done based on conventional norms. If stock valuation is done with Shariah considerations, it may yield different prices.
BAG uses the argument that the PU is merely a Wa’d (promise) which is not legally binding. If the PU is put to test and challenged in court, would the holder of the undertaking be compelled, by law, to honour the undertaking? If they are, then it is no longer a Wa’d but a legally binding contract instead.
Loan/top-up/liquidity arrangement in case of shortfall in profits – in equity based structures, are the managers allowed to do the same? BAG again argues that this arrangement is merely a Wa’d and therefore not legally binding. Again, will it stand if challenged in court?
A guarantee by a third (non-related) party is seen as an act of benevolence, it should not have any strings attached or payments charged.
The recurring argument of substance over form – different mazhabs have different opinions on the subject and all their opinions are valid from the Shariah perspective. Again, to overcome this obstacle, label a product based on the approving mazhab and let the market decide.
P.14, Col 1, para 6, last 2 lines – oxymoron, Musharakah is not a fixed income instrument.
My conclusions –
Musharakah = equity. Therefore, if we choose to structure a Sukuk based on the principles of Musharakah, we should also adhere to the principles that govern equity structures.
Shariah parameters are split between the 4 main mazhabs. Any stand or ruling must be accompanied by the basis, i.e. which mazhab it was based on. At the end of the day, it is for the market to decide which is best suited for their needs.
No comments:
Post a Comment