Skip to main content

God's Will Changes (in Shariah Finance)

Image result for God

This is big news, both in the world of finance and in that of, well  ... Islamic theology.

In May of this year, [I'm sorry I'm late to this table] a company headquartered in the United Arab Emirates, Dana Gas, declared that $700 million of its sukuk bonds were, simply, invalid. It obtained a preliminary injunction against creditor enforcement. That may have been an opening negotiation ploy in a sense -- Dana coupled this announcement with an exchange offer, proposing to give its creditors new bonds for the old, with a haircut of more than half the value of the old.

Jason Kilborn calls this an "existential crisis" for the whole field of Islamic finance, or Shariah-compliant finance, of which these bonds were an example.

Does Dana Gas propose to change the rules -- rules that supposedly represent God's will, by its own sayso?

Well, no. Not exactly. But kinda.

Here is Kilborn's take:

Here's a Reuters story: 

Islamic law prohibits lending money for interest or, what is the same, buying (conventional) bonds. Nonetheless, there are lots of "sukuk" bonds circulating in the world, that is, bonds that are marketed as Shariah compliant, using various structures approved by boards of experts in which that prohibition does and doesn't mean.

One of the structures behind sukuk issuance -- indeed, a very familiar one in the field -- is known as mudarabah. This means that a partnership interest lies beneath the issuance. The idea is that a loan isn't really a loan if one partner issues an IOU to another -- its incidental to the equity interest.

A somewhat different way of accepting a non-loan loan, that is, selling approved sukuk, is known as ijarah. If the sukuk is ijarah, then some asset has changed hands, and the quasi-interest payments are lawfully considered payments on the lease of that asset.

I'm sorry if your eyes are glazing over. But here is the audacity of what Dana Gas is pulling. They claim that the sukuk they issued in 2013 under a partnership agreement were invalid, in violation of Shariah, because ijarah has supplanted mudaradah in the development of Shariah finance. They were apparently behind that curve at time of issuance, and they regret it now, but  ... whatcha gonna do?

This is blatantly wrong. The two structures (and several others) have long been considered alternative ways of doing the same thing (laundering interest payments, to be blunt about it). Neither has supplanted the other in any sense but the imagination of Dana's advisors.

The bondholders seem determined to fight this in the courts of the region. Thus far (into the month of July) the issuer hasn't even been able to get the bondholders to return their calls. Literally. They keep trying to arrange a teleconference to discuss new terms of payment, and they have been repeatedly forced to reschedule.

With what tricks dost thou not endow the minds of men, oh accursed hunger for gold?
(Statius wrote that. Or something like that. I think.)


  1. Quantum Binary Signals

    Professional trading signals delivered to your cell phone every day.

    Start following our signals today & gain up to 270% per day.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

England as a Raft?

In a lecture delivered in 1880, William James asked rhetorically, "Would England ... be the drifting raft she is now in European affairs if a Frederic the Great had inherited her throne instead of a Victoria, and if Messrs Bentham, Mill, Cobden, and Bright had all been born in Prussia?"

Beneath that, in a collection of such lectures later published under James' direction, was placed the footnote, "The reader will remember when this was written."

The suggestion of the bit about Bentham, Mill, etc. is that the utilitarians as a school helped render England ineffective as a European power, a drifting raft.

The footnote was added in 1897. So either James is suggesting that the baleful influence of Bentham, Mill etc wore off in the meantime or that he had over-estimated it.

Let's unpack this a bit.  What was happening in the period before 1880 that made England seem a drifting raft in European affairs, to a friendly though foreign observer (to the older brother…

Cancer Breakthrough

Hopeful news in recent days about an old and dear desideratum: a cure for cancer. Or at least for a cancer, and a nasty one at that.

The news comes about because investors in GlaxoSmithKline are greedy for profits, and has already inspired a bit of deregulation to boot. 

The FDA has paved the road for a speedy review of a new BCMA drug for multiple myeloma, essentially cancer of the bone marrow. This means that the US govt has removed some of the hurdles that would otherwise (by decision of the same govt) face a company trying to proceed with these trials expeditiously. 

This has been done because the Phase I clinical trial results have been very promising. The report I've seen indicates that details of these results will be shared with the world on Dec. 11 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. 

The European Medicines Agency has also given priority treatment to the drug in question. 

GSK's website identifies the drug at issue as "GSK2857916," althou…

Francesco Orsi

I thought briefly that I had found a contemporary philosopher whose views on ethics and meta-ethics checked all four key boxes. An ally all down the line.

The four, as regular readers of this blog may remember, are: cognitivism, intuitionism, consequentialism, pluralism. These represent the views that, respectively: some ethical judgments constitute knowledge; one important source for this knowledge consists of quasi-sensory non-inferential primary recognitions ("intuitions"); the right is logically dependent upon the good; and there exists an irreducible plurality of good.

Francesco Orsi seemed to believe all of these propositions. Here's his website and a link to one relevant paper:

What was better: Orsi is a young man. Born in 1980. A damned child! Has no memories of the age of disco!

So I emailed him asking if I was right that he believed all of those things. His answer: three out of …