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

3Ps – Products, Placement, Promotion

Experts (in Islamic banking & finance) are saying that in order to effectively challenge and compete with conventional finance, Islamic finance needs more products and a wider distribution channel. It would be difficult to attract liquidity into the industry without adequate products and distribution network. This growing industry also needs to develop more unique financial solutions and not resort to merely replicating conventional finance’s product line.

The wealthy GCC sovereign funds are believed to resort to investing in conventional products due to the lack of Shariah approved investment options.

Shariah based finance and investment is mainly based on partnerships and joint-ventures making it suitable for private equity ventures, venture capital as well as asset management. These sectors will allow the Islamic finance industry to create products according to Shariah values, especially on the prohibition of riba via pre-determined return rates.

According to a report published by Ernst & Young this year, as of 1Q 2009, there are only 14 Shariah compliant funds larger than USD500 million out of the 750 Islamic mutual funds under management. Total assets under management is less than USD50 million.

John Sandwick, an Islamic asset management consultant claims that the supply of Islamic funds is not enough to satisfy the demand. The market needs more products. The advent of the pension fund in the Middle East as well as the growing takaful industry will definitely increase the need for more products.

Experts also pointed out most Islamic funds tend to focus on equities and real estate and not much asset diversification especially into fixed income investments.

Sukuk is a ready made instrument to facilitate the Islamic asset management industry. Ijarah, Murabahah and Istisna based Sukuk will provide asset managers with more fixed income investment options.

Silke Bernard, a lawyer specialising in funds said, Islamic funds lacked access to the large distribution platforms used by asset managers and that Islamic funds often lacked the required minimum size of typically USD100 million and a track record of several years required by large asset managers.

It is often pointed out that there is a sizeable amount of Islamic (GCC) wealth looking for Shariah compliant investments. There have also been claims that Shariah compliant investment is already attracting a global fan base from Europe to Australia and Japan and this augurs well for the industry’s long term growth.

Article review – “Is AAOIFI Ban on Musharaka Sukuk Justified?”

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.

Vulnerability of Islamic finance exposed?

Sukuk defaults expose vulnerability of Islamic finance

MANAMA/KUALA LUMPUR: First defaults of Sukuk are set to expose the vulnerabilities of Islamic finance, with most investors expected to have no better legal redress than conventional bondholders as underlying assets have not been truly transferred to them.

The current financial and economic crisis is a first for the $1 trillion Islamic finance industry, which over the past few years has been spoilt by cheap oil money, and legal provisions and protection clauses in Sukuk worth billions of dollars are being tested for the first time.

Islamic bonds, or Sukuk, are structured as profit-sharing or rental agreements and their returns are derived from underlying assets. Islamic finance caters to investors who would like to avoid paying or earning interest, prohibited by Islamic law.

Kuwait’s Investment Dar said in May it had defaulted on a $100 million Sukuk registered in Bahrain and in the United States a court case is ongoing on the East Cameron Partners Sukuk by bankrupt Texas-based East Cameron Gas Company.

Despite its earlier billing as a safer alternative to traditional banking due to its requirement for assets to underpin deals, Islamic bondholders may not have any more legal safeguards than conventional counterparts in case of default.

With rare exceptions, Sukuk issuers have created special purpose vehicles (SPV) to pool assets underlying the issue, but they have not been securitized for a true sale to investors.

“Secular, non-Shariah courts upholding those structures are more likely to consider Sukuk holders to have contractual rights as opposed to proprietary rights and as a result rank them as creditors rather than equity holders,” said Muneer Khan, partner and head of Islamic finance at law firm Simmons and Simmons.

A $650 million Sukuk issued by troubled Saudi group Saad, which is undergoing debt restructuring, for example is seen as an asset-based, rather than an asset-backed, Sukuk. Yields of the Sukuk jumped to above 70 percent in mid-June, as investors feared a default of the issue.

Most Sukuk are structured as asset-based instruments, rather than asset-backed securitization where “you always have a claim for that particular asset that has been sold to you as the investor”, said Megat Hizaini Hassan, an Islamic banking lawyer in Kuala Lumpur.

“Everybody is chasing the same assets if they have not been transferred to the name of the Sukuk holders,” said Samer Amro, senior associate at law firm Dewey LeBoef. Other uncertainties are likely to arise from Sukuk defaults, including a debate about how courts will interpret repurchase clauses which are structured to follow a controversial ruling by prominent jurist Sheikh Muhammad Taqi Usmani in late 2007. Taqi had ruled that repurchase guarantees found in most Sukuk contradict Islamic laws, as they violate the principle of sharing risks and returns.

“If you’re looking at the newer structures where the repurchase obligations are left to be determined at the time of repurchase, there may be some issues there,” said Megat Hizaini. “You don’t really know how the courts will treat it in the situation,” he said.

Islamic finance is governed by scholars’ rulings, national regulators and its own standard-settings bodies such as Bahrain-based AAOIFI, the Accounting and Auditing Organization for Islamic Financial Institutions.

“In the Middle East, it’s going to put to the test many of the legal protections that were originally built into the Sukuk,” said Mohammad Faiz Azmi, global Islamic finance leader at PriceWaterhouseCoopers, adding that countries in the region typically do not have bankruptcy laws as sophisticated as in Europe.

“When these Sukuk start to default, it would be very apparent which jurisdiction has a more robust system than others,” he said.

Corporates with perceived higher risks that are facing high borrowing costs and a sluggish regional IPO (initial public offering) market could use true Sukuk sales with full ownership transfers as an avenue to the capital markets.

“It adds some credit-enhancement, it adds credit-worthiness,” said Rizwan Khan, a senior associate at law firm Norton Rose.

But the paperwork involved in registering ownership transfers in the Gulf Arab region and restrictions on foreign ownership of land make true Sukuk sales difficult.

Issuers have to register the SPVs, to which asset ownership would have to be transferred, in Bahrain or the Cayman Islands, as regulatory frameworks in other Gulf countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait do not fully cover Sukuk structures. This turns the SPV into a foreign buyer, limiting the pool of assets.

“This is not going to change unless laws are enacted, in particular on the ownership issues,” Khan said.

Source: Reuters, Monday 20 July 2009 (27 Rajab 1430)


The article above highlights and proves how identical the Sukuk is with conventional bonds as most investors are not expected to have better legal redress than conventional bondholders as underlying assets have not been truly transferred to them. This will lead to Islamic bondholders not having any more legal safeguards than conventional counterparts in case of default because their structure is merely asset-based and not asset-backed where they have a claim for that particular asset that has been “sold” to them. To make it worse, the courts may regard the Sukukholders as mere creditors instead of equity holders.

A good way to address this issue is to ensure that future Sukuk issuances be done in the true Shariah spirit, especially when it comes to asset ownership. The transfer of assets in such transaction must not be done just for the purpose of making it “Shariah compliant”. In a Shariah based structure, the equity element is always present, the debt element comes later. It is not possible to structure a debt based Sukuk without having equity ownership first.