This section sets out the minimum capital adequacy requirements to cover the transactions that are based on the Sharia rules and principles of Murabahah and Murabahah to the Purchase Orderer (MPO).
In Murabahah and MPO, the capital adequacy requirement for credit risk refers to the risk of a counterparty not paying the agreed price of an asset to the bank. In the case of binding MPOs, the risks faced by the Islamic banks are different at the various stages of the contract.
This section is broadly divided into (a) Murabahah and non-binding MPO and (b) binding MPO, as the types of risk faced by the bank are different at the various stages of the contract for the two categories.
This classification and the distinctions between a non-binding MPO and a binding MPO are subject to the criteria and opinions set by the respective SSB of the bank or any other SSB as specified by the CBB.
A Murabahah contract refers to an agreement whereby the bank sells to a customer at acquisition cost (purchase price plus other direct costs) plus an agreed profit margin, a specified kind of asset that is already in its possession. An MPO contract refers to an agreement whereby the bank sells to a customer at cost (as above) plus an agreed profit margin, a specified kind of asset that has been purchased and acquired by the bank based on a Promise to Purchase (PP) by the customer which can be a binding or non-binding PP.
In a Murabahah transaction, the bank sells an asset that is already available in its possession, whereas in a MPO transaction the bank acquires an asset in anticipation that the asset will be purchased by the orderer/customer.
This price risk in Murabahah contracts ceases and is replaced by credit risk for the amount receivable from the customer following delivery of the asset. Likewise, in a non-binding MPO transaction, the bank is exposed to credit risk on the amount receivable from the customer when the latter accepts delivery and assumes ownership of the asset.
In a binding MPO, the bank has no 'long' position in the asset that is the subject of the transaction, as there is a binding obligation on the customer to take delivery of the asset at a pre-determined price. The bank is exposed to counterparty risk in the event that the orderer in a binding MPO does not honour his/her obligations under the PP, resulting in the bank selling the asset to a third party at a selling price which may be lower than the cost to the bank. The risk of selling at a loss is mitigated by securing a Hamish Jiddiyyah (HJ) (a security deposit held as collateral upon entering into agreement to purchase or agreement to lease) upon executing the PP with the customer, as commonly practised in the case of binding MPO.
As one of the CRM techniques, the bank can secure a pledge of the sold asset/underlying asset or another tangible asset ("collateralised Murabahah"). The collateralisation is not automatically provided in a Murabahah contract but must be explicitly stated or must be documented in a separate security agreement at or before the time of signing of the Murabahah contract. The bank may employ other techniques such as pledge of deposits or a third party financial guarantee. The RW of a financial guarantor can be substituted for the RW of the purchaser provided that the guarantor has a better credit rating than the purchaser and that the guarantee is legally enforceable.
In financing transactions that are collateralised, the pricing of the Murabahah assets and determination of the required amount of HJ would normally take into consideration the market value and forced-sale value of the assets; and the CRM would take into account of any 'haircut' applicable to the collateralised assets (if these assets are eligible collateral or acceptable to the Central Bank). Thus, fluctuations in the market value and forced sale value of the collateralised assets are dealt with under credit risk assessment. For full details of CRM techniques, and the eligibility of collateral, refer to Section CA-4.7.
© CBB 2006 — All Rights Reserved