Money Market – a Shariah Anomaly

Conventional wisdom states that money must generate returns all the time, even when it is idle. Hence the creation of the money market, a place for trading idle money. When there is a trade, there will be a price; and the price of money is the interest rate. What determines the interest rate? Other than the forces of demand and supply; monetary policy, expectation of changes in the base rate and inflation also influences the price of money.

The money market is also a place where mismatches in banks’ assets and liabilities are rectified. Banks with excess funds (liabilities > assets) will sell (lend) the excess cash in the money market and banks facing a shortage of funds (assets > liability) will buy (borrow) money from the market.

The money market ensures liquidity is managed and is therefore crucial to ensure the banking system and the economy works smoothly.

Why then do I say that the money market is an anomaly in Shariah based finance?

Firstly, my understanding is Shariah prohibits the trading of money because money is not a commodity; it is merely a tool to facilitate trade. Money is potential capital, useful only when put into productive economic use.

Secondly, money is a ribawi item, one which cannot be exchanged unless it is equal in value and transacted spot. The following hadith is the basis of this ruling.

The Prophet s.a.w. said “gold for gold, silver for silver, wheat for wheat, barley for barley, dates for dates and salt for salt should be exchanged like for like, equal for equal and hand to hand [on the spot]. If the types of the exchanged commodities are different, then sell them as you wish, if they are exchanged on the basis of a hand-to-hand transaction. (Sahih Muslim)

Therefore, the act of lending overnight money at 3%, contravenes the above hadith because (1) the exchanged value differs and (2) it is not exchanged on spot basis.

Then Tawarruq came along. Liquidity management in a Shariah compliant manner is now possible via the buying and selling of commodities (which does not leave the warehouse and is reused again and again for subsequent transactions). The route is longer but the objective is met nonetheless, money is exchanged in different amounts at different times, made “permissible” due to the presence of the trade. It sounds like a hilah to me because the whole transaction is undertaken merely to circumvent Shariah ruling on riba. It also does not entail any direct economic activity. The biggest beneficiary is the commodity brokers, getting paid for facilitating a seemingly pointless transaction.

No doubt, there will be times of excess liquidity and it does not make economic sense to keep the potential capital idle without generating any income.

This excess liquidity can be channelled towards financing short term projects or providing short term funding. Trade financing would be a good place to start. Retailers/traders usually buy from suppliers or wholesalers or manufacturers on credit terms. Banks could offer a short term murabahah facility to finance this type of transactions in the form of a 3 day, 1 week, 2 week or 30 day murabahah financing. This would channel the excess liquidity towards funding real economic activity.

Another way to absorb the excess liquidity is by way of a short term lease. A clearing house needs to be set up. The clearing house shall own a pool of tenanted properties. When a bank (or anyone for that matter) has excess liquidity, they will purchase property from the clearing house and the rental will be paid to them. When they need the cash, the property will be sold back to the clearing house at market value. In most cases, the purchase and sale price would be the same as it is quite unlikely for real estate values to fluctuate very much in the span of a few weeks.

Both methods entails actual economic activity and the returns from the investment are generated from actual economic activity.

There is always a Shariah based solution to every financial need. If there isn’t, the financial transaction is probably not in tandem with Shariah in the first place.

Liquidity Management via Commodity Trading?

I’m not a Shariah scholar but I think I know a “hilah” or legal trick when I see one.

Selling and buying back a commodity (Bai Inah) between two parties is obviously a legal trick undertaken to circumvent the laws of Shariah. What about artificially trading and exchanging commodities between 3-4 parties? By artificially I mean the trading of the commodities does not bring any economic benefit apart from facilitating the movements of cash and enabling a sum of money today to be returned at a later date inclusive of the “profit”. Hey, I just described Commodity Murabahah Tawarruq.

I have been made to understand and have always believed that Shariah based trade and finance must involve real and productive economic activity. Transferring commodities within seconds does not create any productive economic activity. Transferring commodities for this purpose tantamount to a legal trick, hilah. Correct me if I’m wrong.

Commodity Murabahah exist for liquidity purposes. Without it, how will Shariah based financial institutions manage their liquidity? Maybe the answer lies in how Shariah based financial institutions look at liquidity management. Do they need it in the first place? Deposits undertaken under the contract of Mudharabah are not demand deposits, they are investments, and liquidating investments has its steps and conditions. Savings deposit under the contract of Wadi’ah is for safekeeping and is not supposed to be utilised. If they are, then the onus is on the FI to meet the withdrawal demands of the customers.

Conventional banks use customer deposits to fund loans. They face the problem of matching short term liabilities with long term assets. Shariah based FI do not face the same dilemma because they are NOT supposed to fund financing with customer’s (Wadi’ah) deposits. Financing are done on a profit sharing basis, it is done in a partnership. Therefore, any financing arrangement is between the customers, and the FI merely acts a facilitator, arranger, manager or if they commit their own capital, as a partner and hence liquidity issues might not occur.

What I’m trying to say is, if Shariah based financial institutions undertake Shariah based financing exactly how it is supposed to be done, they won’t need legal tricks. There is no need to complicate things just to conform to the conventional norms.

Tawarruq – a Tripartite Inah?

The OIC Fiqh Academy rules that organised Tawarruq is unacceptable (Resolution 179 (19/5) 26 – 30 April 2009). In particular they ruled that it came into conflict with Maqasid Shariah (the basic principles underlying Shariah).

Tawarruq is widely used as a liquidity management tool and most scholars sanction the structure. However, some scholars argue it involves legal trickery and contains elements of interest based lending. Tawarruq does not create any economic activity but instead it creates debts.

Tawarruq is a tripartite arrangement between a bank and two commodity brokers. The bank will undertake a Tawarruq transaction whenever it gives out loans (or in a more Shariah compliant term – financing) or when the bank requires funds.  The modus operandi is as follows:

1. The bank will procure commodities or metals from a broker at price P, payment is spot.
2.  The bank will then sell the commodity to the customer (borrower) at price P plus profit, payment is deferred as per the financing agreement.
3. The customer then instructs the banks to sell the commodity/metal back to the market at price P, payment spot. The customer gets his cash from the “sale proceeds”.
4. The commodity is bought and sold within minutes and never leaves the warehouse. All this buying and selling action has no real economic value. Only the brokers make money.

•  The operations is reversed if the bank wishes to borrow from another institution.

To me, Tawarruq is basically an Inah with an additional contracting party. The whole process of buying and selling metals/commodities is merely a charade, a legal trick as the main purpose is to transfer cash from one party to another.

It has always been argued by some that niyah (intention) is secondary when undertaking such contracts. I do not agree. If we exclude niyah, everything will be permissible. A lot of observers have urged Islamic finance practitioners to look at the substance behind the form when structuring Shariah based solutions, the on going debate on substance over form of Islamic banking products and services.

Dr Nikan Firoozye (http://islamic-finance-resources.blogspot.com/) opines that we should categorize products by their Shariah-risk, with hiyal (legal trick) the most risky. I wish to add that if such measure is used, the higher the Shariah-risk is, the less compliant the product is.

Dr Mohammad Akram Laldin, a respected Malaysian religious scholar, disagreed with OIC's ruling, saying organised tawarruq does not violate Islamic law principles. “From the point of view of Islamic law, there is nothing wrong with the transaction itself.” (http://islamicfinanceupdates.wordpress.com/2009/06/04/islam-allows-organised-tawarruq-asset-sales-scholar/)

I do not see this declaration as a hindrance to the growth or development of Shariah based finance. I see it as moving out and away from the conventional norms and in the long run will bode well for Islamic banking and finance. BBA and Inah based products are being gradually phased out in Malaysia and with the latest declaration, expect to see more products being out of favour. I hope Commodity Murabahah will be next.