IFSB published two working papers on regulatory and supervisory issues in Sharī`ah-compliant hedging instruments (WP-14) and intermediaries in the Islamic capital market (WP-13). Also, IFSB and the Arab Monetary Fund issued a joint working paper on money laundering and financing of terrorism (ML/FT) risks in Islamic banking (WP-12).
Sharī`ah-compliant hedging instruments. This working paper investigates existing practices in relation to the use of Islamic hedging instruments and the regulatory and Sharī`ah compliance concerns raised across IFSB jurisdictions. The findings in this paper reveal that the risk profile of institutions offering Islamic financial services is not much different from the risk profile of the conventional banks; thus, credit risk, liquidity risk, and rate-of-return risk are the main risks for Islamic institutions. Asset-liability alignment and Wa’d emerged as the main hedging tools; however, in general, institutions offering Islamic financial services were either not using hedging instruments or lacked the motivation to utilize them. The working paper also reveals that about half of the institutions offering Islamic financial services that were surveyed were aware that specific regulations pertain to the use of Islamic hedging instruments; however, since the regulations were not standardized across the globe, the application of hedging instruments was minimal.
Intermediaries in the Islamic capital market. This paper investigates the pertinent role played by intermediaries in the Islamic capital market. It considers four key core principles in IFSB-21 on core principles for Islamic finance regulation (Islamic Capital Market Segment) relating to the Islamic capital market intermediaries’ assessment of issues affecting their intermediation activities in IFSB jurisdictions. The findings in this paper reveal that there are commendable licensing and entry requirements in place in various jurisdictions, as well as ongoing assessments of due compliance by the Islamic capital market intermediaries with those requirements. While the Islamic capital market intermediaries are susceptible to conflict-of-interest risk, they nonetheless generally have internal mechanisms catering to the consequences arising therefrom. Finally, there seem to be procedures in place that provide early warning of potential failure of the Islamic capital market intermediaries prior to their infringing on the soundness and safety of the Islamic capital market.
ML/FT risks in Islamic banking: This working paper explores the diverse risks of ML/FT activities in the banking system to identify whether these risks vary between conventional and Islamic banking. The paper discusses survey responses received from the banking regulatory and supervisory authorities on ML/FT. Overall, the paper does not find any significant difference in the ML/FT risks between conventional and Islamic banking. Most respondents believe that there is no merit in introducing specific regulations or preventive measures to address the ML/FT risks in Islamic banking. Since risk levels are largely similar in both conventional and Islamic banking, Islamic banks should adhere to their own country regulations and the Financial Action Task Force standards to combat ML/FT.
- Press Release on WP-14
- Paper on Hedging (PDF)
- Press Release on WP-13
- Paper on Capital Markets (PDF)
- Press Release on WP-12
- Paper on ML/FT Risks (PDF)
Keywords: International, Banking, Insurance, Securities, Hedging, Islamic Banking, Islamic Finance, Credit Risk, IFSB-21, Liquidity Risk, IFSB
EU published Directive 2021/338, which amends the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID) II and the Capital Requirements Directives (CRD 4 and 5) to facilitate recovery from the COVID-19 crisis.
The Standing Committee of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) recommended that a systemic risk buffer level of 4.5% for domestic exposures can be considered appropriate for addressing the identified systemic risks to the stability of the financial system in Norway.
In a recent statement, PRA clarified its approach to the application of certain EU regulatory technical standards and EBA guidelines on standardized and internal ratings-based approaches to credit risk, following the end of the Brexit transition.
In a recently published letter addressed to the G20 finance ministers and central bank governors, the FSB Chair Randal K. Quarles has set out the key FSB priorities for 2021.
EU published, in the Official Journal of the European Union, a corrigendum to the revised Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR2 or Regulation 2019/876).
ESAs published a joint supervisory statement on the effective and consistent application and on national supervision of the regulation on sustainability-related disclosures in the financial services sector (SFDR).
EC published a public consultation on the review of crisis management and deposit insurance frameworks in EU.
HKMA announced that enhancements will be made to the Special 100% Loan Guarantee of the SME Financing Guarantee Scheme (SFGS) and the application period will be extended to December 31, 2021.
EBA launched consultations on the regulatory and implementing technical standards on cooperation and information exchange between competent authorities involved in prudential supervision of investment firms.
BoE issued a letter to the CEOs of eight major UK banks that are in scope of the first Resolvability Assessment Framework (RAF) reporting and disclosure cycle.