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.