P4 Islamic finance – theory and practical use of sukuk bonds(2)

Sukuk finance case studies

For Emirates airline, the use of sukuk finance has been a huge success. The

company issued its first sukuk (Islamic Bond), with a seven-year term, in 2005,

which was listed on the Luxembourg Stock Exchange. The $550m was repaid

in full in June 2012.

 

‘The repayment of our first ever sukuk bond is part of Emirates’ varied

financing strategy and reflects our robust financial position,’ said Sheikh

Ahmed bin Saeed Al Maktoum, chairman of the Emirates Group and chief

executive of Emirates airline.

 

Emirates’ initial injection of equity finance at the time of its creation 24 years

ago has been supplemented by a variety of financing options, including

operating leases, EU/US export credits, commercial asset-backed debt,

Islamic financing, conventional bonds, as well as sukuk.

 

Tim Clark, Emirates’ president, recently stated that the airline had traditionally

used European debt to finance purchase of its fast-growing Boeing and Airbus

fleet. The French banks were particularly forthcoming with finance solutions.

 

However, since the global debt crisis in 2008, the traditional debt markets

have taken a risk averse position – even with a business like Emirates, which

has an unbroken profit-making record.

 

Clark outlined that obtaining funding for new planes using sukuk could be

tricky because Islamic finance, in addition to forbidding payment of interest,

prohibits pure monetary speculation and requires deals to involve concrete

assets. It would be harder to win a seal of approval from Islamic finance

scholars for a sukuk that was based on assets, which the airline did not yet

own.

 

For new aircraft, it is not impossible but it is much more complicated as the

cash would have to go from investors through a special purpose vehicle to the

manufacturer before a lease-back arrangement is put in place. Hence, using

existing assets to obtain sukuk finance is far easier.

 

Emirates currently has two aircraft-based sukuk instruments that have been

issued globally, and is backed by existing aircraft: a $500m issue from GE

Capital in November 2009, and a $100m deal for Nomura in July 2010.

 

Emirates is not the only success story when it comes to the use of sukuk

finance. Dubai shopping mall developer Majid Al Futtaim decided against

issuing a conventional bond because of pricing concerns. It mandated its

banks to set up a separate sukuk programme. Turkish Airlines has followed

suit and will finance the purchase of its expanding fleet with Islamic bonds.

 

The sukuk market has been relatively resilient during the instability in global

financial markets, which has made it more difficult for even highly rated

companies around the world to issue conventional bonds. That is partly

because Islamic investors in the Gulf remain cash-rich, partly due to the

limited supply of sukuk, and partly since sukuk investors tend to hold the

bonds until maturity. If these bonds are not being sold on to other investors,

there is little or no chance of the bond value fluctuating.

 

Recent events have shown the same is not true for conventional bonds. The

influence of the credit rating agencies with their regular reassessment of

government and corporate credit ratings has caused downward movement in

prices. As one commentator recently stated: ‘Equities are the only game in

town – bonds carry more risk.’

 

However, the story of Dubai World, the sovereign investment fund of the Dubai

royal family, gives the other side of the story when it comes to the use of

Islamic finance. On 25 November 2009, the financial world was shocked when

Dubai World requested a restructuring of $26bn in debts. The main concern

was the delay in the repayment of the $4bn sukuk, or Islamic bond, of Dubai

World’s developer Nakheel, which was especially known for construction of the

Dubai Palm Islands.

 

The Nakheel sukuk was quite a complicated instrument. It was broadly based

on the aforementioned Ijarah structure. In theory, the SPV has legal ownership

over the asset in this sale and leaseback arrangement. However, in this case

the SPV only had a long leasehold interest for a period of 50 years. The issue is that leasehold right is not seen as a real right or property right under UAE law as applicable in Dubai. What may have seemed secure was not.

 

Nevertheless, the Nakheel sukuk was backed by a few additional guarantees

that should have provided sukuk investors with some recourse. As such, these

guarantees gave investors the confidence to invest in the sukuk. A guarantee

from the state-owned parent company, which implicitly provides a government

guarantee for the sukuk (despite the fact that the prospectus clearly stated

otherwise), had reassured investors. This misplaced assumption misled

investors in their risk–return decision on the investment.

 

The issue, however, did not end there; the complications worsened when the

parent company that acted as guarantor found itself in a situation that made it

no better placed than Nakheel to repay the sukuk. Dubai World is also just a

holding company for a number of other companies beside Nakheel. However,

all of Dubai World’s subsidiaries have their own creditors and their own debts

to service, and the important thing for Nakheel sukuk-holders is that the

creditors of Dubai World, through the guarantee, are subordinated to the

creditors of the subsidiaries of Dubai World.

 

A public statement on 30 November 2009 by the Dubai Finance Department

director-general, that the Dubai World debts are ‘not guaranteed by the

government’, appears to correctly reflect the legal position, as the Dubai

government was not required by the lenders, and nor did it provide, any

contractual guarantees in respect of the Dubai World debt.

 

As history tells us, Nakheel did not default on its Islamic bond. The well

reported $10bn bailout, including providing $4.1bn to assist Nakheel directly

from Dubai’s rich neighbours Abu Dhabi, calmed the markets. But this was

only part of the solution. Nakheel also issued new sukuk bonds to some of its

creditors in lieu of amounts due to them. This was a key part of the company's

restructuring.

 

In a prospectus attached to the new sukuk, Nakheel revealed that it wrote

down the value of its property and project portfolio by almost Dh74bn

(US$20.14bn) in 2009 as its fortunes flagged. The company also said it

changed tactics in response to the financial crisis, forging ahead with a

selection of its projects and putting others on hold.

 

Conclusion

The global debt crisis sent shockwaves through the financial markets and, at

the time of writing this article, the western banks remain reluctant to loan cash

to the business community. Islamic finance, and in particular sukuk, has to

some extent filled the gap left by the traditional debt markets.

 

The Sharia principle on which it is based is fundamentally important and

should ensure it is a safe and sensible finance option for both the company

needing the finance as well as the sukuk holder. Clearly, companies like

Emirates have shown the way on how to make sukuk one part of their finance

portfolio.

 

However, the Nakheel story paints a different picture. A complicated Ijarah

structure and a lack of legal clarity as to ownership of the underlying asset

have clouded the water. If the Abu Dhabi bailout failed to materialize, then the

story may have been significantly different.

      

Sunil Bhandari is a freelance Paper P4 tutor and a member of the Paper P4 marking team (www.SunilBhandari.com)

 

APPENDIX – THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF ISLAMIC FINANCE

The Islamic economic model has developed over time based on the rulings of

Sharia on commercial and financial transactions. The Islamic finance

framework is based on:

·           equity, such that all parties involved in a transaction can make informed

decisions without being misled or cheated

·           pursuing personal economic gain but without entering into those

transactions that are forbidden (for example, transactions involving

alcohol, pork-related products, armaments, gambling and other socially

detrimental activities). Also, speculation is also prohibited (so options

and futures are ruled out)

·            the strict prohibition of interest (riba = excess).

 

As stated above, earning interest (riba) is not allowed.

 

In an Islamic bank, the money provided in the form of deposits is not loaned,

but is instead channeled into an underlying investment activity, which will earn

profit. The depositor is rewarded by a share in that profit, after a management

fee is deducted by the bank.

 

A typical illustration would be how an Islamic bank may purchase a property

from a seller and resell it to a buyer at a profit. The buyer will be allowed to

pay in instalments. Compare this to a typical mortgage where the bank lends

money to the buyer and charges interest.

 

Hence, returns are made from cash returns from a productive source – for

example, profits from selling assets or allowing the use of an asset (rent).

 

In Islamic banking there are broadly two categories of financing techniques:

·           ‘fixed Income’ modes of finance – murabaha, ijara, sukuk

·            equity modes of finance – mudaraba, musharaka.

·            

FIXED INCOME MODES

 

(a) Murabaha

Murabaha is a form of trade credit or loan. The key distinction between a

murabaha and a loan is that, with a murabaha, the bank will take actual

constructive or physical ownership of the asset. The asset is then sold to the

‘borrower’ or ‘buyer’ for a profit but they are allowed to pay the bank over a set

number of instalments.

 

The period of the repayments could be extended, but no penalities or

additional mark-up may be added by the bank. Early payment discounts are

not within the contract.

 

(b) Ijara

Ijara is the equivalent of lease finance. It is defined as when the use of the

underlying asset or service is transferred for consideration. Under this concept,

the bank makes available to the customer the use of assets or equipment such

as plant or motor vehicles for a fixed period and price. Some of the

specifications of an Ijara contact include:

·           the use of the leased asset must be specified in the contract

·           the lessor (the bank) is responsible for the major maintenance of the

underlying assets (ownership costs)

·           the lessee is held for maintaining the asset in proper order.

An Islamic lease is more like an operating lease, but the redemption features

may be structured to make it similar to a finance lease.

 

(c) Sukuk

Companies often issue bonds to enable them to raise debt finance. The bond

holder receives interest and this is paid before dividends.

 

This is prohibited under Islamic law. Instead, Islamic bonds (or sukuk) are

linked to an underlying asset, such that a sukuk holder is a partial owner in the

underlying assets and profit is linked to the performance of the underlying

asset. So, for example, a sukuk holder will participate in the ownership of the

company issuing the sukuk and has a right to profits (but will equally bear

their share of any losses).

 

EQUITY MODES

 

(a) Mudaraba

Mudaraba is a special kind of partnership where one partner gives money to

another for investing it in a commercial enterprise. The investment comes from

the first partner (who is called ‘rab ul mal’), while the management and work is

an exclusive responsibility of the other (who is called ‘mudarib’).

The Mudaraba (profit sharing) is a contract, with one party providing 100% of

the capital and the other party providing its specialist knowledge to invest the

capital and manage the investment project. Profits generated are shared

between the parties according to a pre-agreed ratio. In a Mudaraba only the

lender of the money has to take losses.

 

This arrangement is therefore most closely aligned with equity finance.

 

(b) Musharaka

Musharaka is a relationship between two or more parties that contribute

capital to a business, and divide the net profit and loss pro rata. It is most

closely aligned with the concept of venture capital. All providers of capital are

entitled to participate in management, but are not required to do so. The profit

is distributed among the partners in pre-agreed ratios, while the loss is borne

by each partner strictly in proportion to their respective capital.

                       Previous>>   See the original article>>