Islamic Opinions on Questions of the Debt Market - Free Essay Example

The chapter is divided into five sections and at the end of each section the Islamic opinion is outlined on the questions being examined. First, we discuss on government debt, second; private sector debt, third; external debt and fourth; debt financing from the firms point of view and finally draw some conclusions. Government debt consists of two parts. Internal debt (which, we also refer to as the public debt) and the external debt. Public debt is the debt owed by the citizens of a country in a collective capacity (i.e. as the government) to themselves in their individual capacities. This is quite distinct from the debt owed by the government to citizens and governments outside its jurisdiction. The term national debt, it is often suggested, should be reserved for this other category of debts. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PUBLIC DEBTS Public debts are incurred through public loans, which may be classified in various ways. In the first place, a loan may be either voluntary or compulsory. The chief advantage of a voluntary loan, as compared with a tax, is that different lenders are free, according to their circumstances and inclinations, to subscribe as much or as little as they please. But this disadvantage is lacking in a forced loan, which must be compulsorily subscribed on the same basis as a tax. The chief advantage of a tax, as compared with a voluntary loan, is that it leaves behind it no trail of charges for interest and repayment of principal. But this advantage is lacking in a forced loan, though the rate of interest on the latter may be lower than on a voluntary loan. In the second place, the conventional two way classification into short and long term debts, therefore, appears to rest on an attempt to distinguish between these highly liquid instruments and less liquid ones. Treasury bills are usuall y taken as typifying short term securities. These can in fact be taken to be the most liquid of government debt instruments. This is because: they are usually issued for 91 days or less during which time the risk of serious depreciation in the value of money is likely to be minimal; they can be sold easily on the market without any undue risk of loss; they are readily acceptable to the banks at face value as security for loans because of their near money nature and they are discountable at the central bank. Within this liquidity framework, the medium term debts can also be subsumed into the two way classification. Thus, in so far as medium instruments do not have the features of liquidity given above, it will appear that the proper place for them is with the long term instruments. However, occasionally, medium term installments are issued subject to conditions of easy discountability similar to the case of the short term instruments. In that case, the liquidity charac ter of such medium instruments becomes so enhanced so as to qualify them for inclusion in the short term category. THE ISLAMIC VIEWS ON PUBLIC DEBT In general, the governments need for debt performance mainly arises for three different reasons. It needs short-term finance to bridge the time gap between expenditures made and revenues collected or received. This need is presently met by the sale of treasury bills. Secondly, it needs medium and long-term finance for industries in the public sector as well as public utilities like transport, electrification etc. Lastly, it needs huge financial resources to meet natural calamities or to mobilize defense expenditure during a war. From the first case above, there is no net productivity or actual return involved out of which a share could be ascribed to the money capital borrowed. Since a price is already set on loanable funds in the investment market, the government has to pay interest for these short-term loans, usually obtained by selling treasury bills of short maturity. The interest paid eventually comes out of the tax revenue. Since the lenders are moneyed people and it is they who pay most of the taxes in a welfare state, it amounts to taxing the same class of people to pay them interest. The cost of administering the tax to the extent that it is related to interest payment must, therefore, be regarded as a social waste as well as an extra burden on this class necessitated by this irrational arrangement. Financing public sector industries and utilities, through interest-bearing loans suffers from the same irrationality which attends investment in the private sector. The value productivity of investment in the public sector is as uncertain as it is in the private sector, hence guaranteeing a positive return to the supplier of money capital is unfair. It amounts to transferring the entire burden of possible losses to the society as a whole, while assuring the suppliers of money capital of a guaranteed increment to their wealth. Most of the huge public debts that the modern governments are carrying originated during wars that were financed by raising i nterest-bearing loans. It is argued therefore that the state should either raise funds by taxes or, if these are not sufficient, by compulsory interest-free borrowing from individuals and business. These should be in accordance with income and/or wealth and should be amortized over a specified period of time from war taxes. Such taxes should continue even after the war, perhaps at a lower rate, until the debt has been fully amortized. The emphasis has to be on the careful evaluation of government expenditures and the elimination of as much fat as possible. Every effort should be made to increase efficiency in government spending and reduce wastefulness and corruption. It would be more appropriate for an Islamic state to finance all its normal recurring expenditure out of tax revenues. For this purpose, there is generally no justification for deficits under normal circumstances. Deficits essentially imply postponing the payment for services received by the present generation to future generations. Since the future generations, like the present one, do not wish to pay for past deficits and also wish to postpone even a part of their own burden to the future, the public debt burden continues to rise exponentially. The argument that postponing is for services to be enjoyed by future generations is not valid. In the case of government consumption or wasteful expenditure and war financing, the increase in internal public debt no doubt represents the transfer of the burden to future generations. Even in the case of government capital formation, it must be borne in mind that the present generation is receiving benefits from projects financed by past generations. It would be fair to expect that the present generation, like past ones, would leave behind more capital than it has received. The financing of all consumption spending as well as a part of the capital outlays out of lax revenues would not lead to a continual and rapid expansion of the public debt as has b een the case in most developed as well as developing countries. The easy availability of credit to governments on the basis of willingness to pay interest has led to loose financing by governments. Banks pay little attention to how borrowing countries were managing their economies and how their loans were being used. Very often governments borrow for a short-term because under normal circumstances short-term loans are easier to get and can be rolled over smoothly. The tragedy is that the funds raised through debt are not used for investment in real assets but simply to meet current expenditures, to purchase unnecessary defense hardware, or to finance projects having no economic justification. The result is a steeply rising mountain of dead-weight debt with a continuing rise in the debt-service burden. The resort to debt is made more and more as a means to put off painful, belt-tightening decisions. But greater borrowing now leads to even more borrowing in the future to maintain t he economy on its path of artificial growth and to continue the debt-service payments. To conclude this section, it is however, inevitable that the Islamic state must, of necessity, tailor its expenditure policy carefully and try its utmost to make the best use of available resources. This will be possible only if wasteful and unnecessary spending is avoided. This would necessitate that defense outlays be held within reasonable bounds, wasteful expenditure be eliminated, corruption be kept under control through moral reform of the society, and welfare spending be designed, not to enrich the vested interests but, in conformity with the teachings of Islam, to help those who are really in need. In spite of this policy of honest austerity, the Islamic state can and should have reasonable deficit levels. One way of meeting these deficits would be equity financing of projects which are so amenable. If every effort is made to reduce waste and finance government projects on an equity basis to the extent feasible, the excessive borrowing now being resorted to may not be necessary. Equity financing would, however, demand maximum efficiency and discipline in the management of such projects which unfortunately is not the case in most public sector projects. Deficits which need to be incurred even after the introduction of austerity and equity financing may be financed, in national emergencies, by compulsory lending to the government and, in normal times, by borrowing, partly from the commercial banks and partly from the central bank. The borrowing from the central bank should be within the limits dictated by the goal of price stability. It needs to be clearly stated that there is no escape from sacrifice and austerity, if economic development and general well-being are to be pursued. PRIVATE SECTOR DEBT The ultimate goal of debt policy is to influence the liquidity of the private sector in such a way that will lead to the achievement of the desired goal. This can be successfully done if the participation of the private sector is sufficiently large to form a significant proportion of their assets holding. If it is very low, for example, issue or retirement of debt will hardly go any way to influence their liquidity structure and thus effect a change in their economic behavior. It will appear therefore that a very important problem of debt management is to ensure as much participation of the private sector as possible. To start with, let us attempt to analyze briefly the various factors that influence the investment decisions of different categories of investors in the private sector. DEBT (BOND) FINANCING FROM THE FIRMS POINT OF VIEWS A firm, wishing to raise funds to meet its financing requirements, has a variety of alternatives available for consideration. It may issue common stock, bonds, preferred stock, convertible debentures, and so on, to raise funds. There are different types of bonds which have varied features. A bond is a promissory note issued by the firm to an investor. Firms, of course, do not issue bonds in  £1,000 denominations one at a time. Rather, after assessing its financing requirements the firm will issue millions of pounds worth of bonds and sell them to thousands of investors. Each new debt issue is governed by an indenture or contract between the borrower (the firm) and the lender (the investor). The contract agreement contains covenants or terms and provisions such as the interest rate, maturity date, redemption price, safeguards for lenders, and so on. Bonds can be either registered or bearer bonds. The holder of a registered bond has the bond recorded in his name in the compan ys book and receives the interest payments automatically. A bearer bond is not registered in anyones name. The bond possessor is the assumed owner also. Bearer bonds have coupons attached lo them. At scheduled dales these coupons are redeemed by the owner for the interest payment. Typical types of bonds include mortgage bonds, debentures, subordinated debentures, and income bonds. It is not necessary here to explain the different types of bonds given the subject of this book. ROLE OF DEBT IN THE FINANCIAL STRUCTURE OF A FIRM In modern business organizations capital requirements are so immense that a single source of finance is insufficient. Therefore, we notice that large corporations in general have a diversified ownership structure. But what is somewhat difficult to understand is that these organizations use different kinds of financing methods. The question then is, why do firms obtain funds through different forms of financial instruments? In particular, why do firms use both debt and equity to finance their capital needs? Now suppose the owners of a firm purchase some capital input this year which will produce some output next year. Suppose, furthermore, that if the input level is y, next years output, which for the sake of simplicity may be assumed to consist of the same goods, is (pFfvj, where p is some parameter which may be a random variable. Consider the following two financing possibilities open to the owners of the firm. They can borrow an amount y this year, pay back (1+r) y next year, where r is the rate of interest, and keep the residual, namely tyF(y) (l+r) y. Alternatively, they can sell a claim to some portion of next years output up to a value of y and then, when next years output is produced, they can settle the claim and keep whatever is left. Thus we have two possible methods of finance which apparently yield two different returns to the owners. The first of these is called debt financing (or bond financing) and the second equity financing. Controversy started after the Miller-Modigliani theorem which states that the value of the firm is independent of its financing decisions. This result was questioned given the fact that most firms have some amount of debt and equity in their capital structure. Many writers have tried to place the role of debt in a firms capital structure by relaxing the assumptions of the Miller-Modigliani theorem. In the beginning, efforts centered on the no-bankruptcy and no-taxes assumptions. If the probability of bankruptcy is positive (and it is costly to go bankrupt) then firms and individual borrowers cannot have equal access to credit markets. Firms can issue debt at a lower rate than individuals and this raises the value of the firm. On the other hand if debt payments are tax deductible then again, debt would be cheaper relative to equity. Many authors like Stiglitz, Jensen and Meckling and Grossrnan and Har have a relaxed and a somewhat different assumption of the Miller-Modigliani theorem: that the firms production function is independent of its financial structure. Stiglitz, Jensen and Meckling consider the situation of an investor who has access to an investment project but does not have sufficient funds to finance it. If the investor raises funds by issuing equity, then as he will have a less than 100% interest in the project he will not manage it as carefully as he would had he been a full owner. If, on the other hand, the investor issues debt his incentive to work is reduced much less sinc e, except in bankrupt states, he gets the full benefits of any increase in profits. Thus to Stiglitz, Jensen and Meckling, debt is a way of permitting expansion without sacrificing incentives. Suppose for example a firm has decided to drill an oil well. Suppose further that the firm has to raise the funds from outside sources. If the firm issues debt then it has to pay a fixed sum of money to the lender while if it issues equity then the lenders own a share in the oil well. Finally, assume that it is costly for the lender to monitor the performance of the project. If the lender relies on the reports of the firm there might be an incentive problem: the firm would tend to under-report the projects performance. DISADVANTAGES OF DEBT (BOND) FINANCING Mathur believes that financing with debt increases the finns financial risk because of increased levels of fixed charges in the form of interest expenses. During adverse conditions a firm can stop its dividends. However, a firm encountering adverse conditions cannot avoid its interest payments. The presence of interest-bearing debt in the firms financial structure increases the firms exposure to bankruptcy. Debt financing involves dealing with indentures and covenants. The conditions and requirements imposed on the firm by bondholders may limit the firms financial mobility in future years. There is a limit to how much debt financing by a firm is going to be deemed acceptable by the firms creditors. If a profitable firm is 100% equity-financed, it normally would not have any problems with additional equity financing. However, even if a firm is profitable, investors may be reluctant to buy its new bonds if they feel that the firm is already over leveraged and has a high financial risk. A firm that exceeds or tries to consistently exceed industry-accepted norms for debt financing may find the market very unreceptive to its new financing instruments, irrespective of whether they are bonds or common stock. ISLAMIC VIEWS ON DEBT FINANCE We have to consider the relationship between the creditor and debtor from the perspective of the creditor. He is always concerned about the safe return of the principal lent along with the interest stipulated. The best way to ensure this is to advance money only to creditworthy borrowers who have enough assets to fulfill their commitments. The creditors interests are best served when the borrower has the ability to meet his obligations irrespective of the fate of the actual project in which the loan is to be invested. Even if the project seems to be sound he will hesitate to make a loan if the borrower does not have sufficient assets independent of the projected enterprise. Debt finance goes to the most creditworthy parties, not to those with the most promising projects. Since the financiers get only the market rate of interest as stipulated in their contract with the borrower, the prospects of the entrepreneur making a higher than average rate of profit are not of immediate releva nce to them. What matters more for them is safety, which may at best require a reasonable expectation of making enough profits to pay the contractually fixed interest. Let us turn our analysis and consider the creditor-debtor relationship from the perspective of the debtor. The user of investible funds is naturally keen to employ them as profitably as he can. This may sometimes require innovation and experimentation with new methods of production. But the contractual obligation to repay the principal and pay interest irrespective of the results of enterprise acts as a severe constraint. This is true of small farmers and small-scale enterprises that do not have any reserves of their own to fall back upon in cases where the adoption of new practices does not yield good dividends. The refusal of the supplier of capital to share the uncertainties involved deprives the society of possible gains in the productivity of capital through innovation and the adoption of new techniques. We have argued above that in an interest-based system of financing productive enterprise, expected profitability ceases to be effective in ensuring an efficient allocation of investible funds because of the terms on which these funds are supplied. We shall now proceed to argue that the debt financing method is unjust and results in a mal distribution of income and wealth in society. The entrepreneur, for example, tries his best to make profits since his own rewards always rest on his making a profit. The possibility of loss in a business enterprise arises not only from the quality of entrepreneurship but from the nature of the world in which the enterprise is carried out. Therefore, there is no justification for prescribing a certain return when in the nature of things it is uncertain. Money capital seeking a positive return through enterprise ought to and must tear this uncertainly. When the enterprise incurs a loss the entrepreneur is made to tear the loss and pay the interest out of his own assets. This may result in his disability insofar as future entrepreneurial activities arc concerned. From the social and individual point of view this is very unfortunate. As we have mentioned above, the incidence of loss docs not necessarily imply bad entrepreneurship. It is in the nature of the world around us that some enterprises sometimes fail. It is sufficient to caution the entrepreneurs that in the case of failure they go unrewarded for their entrepreneurial services, earning no profits. But to disable them by depriving them of part of the assets accumulated in the past is hardly justified. It encourages the wealth owners to act as lenders and renters rather than expose their wealth to entrepreneurial risks, either directly by investing them in owner-enterprises or indirectly by offering them as collateral against loans obtained for enterprise. In a system of debt financing, the wealthier owners who choose to lend and wait, steadily grow richer over time whe reas wealth owners who choose to expose their wealth and abilities to the risks of producive enterprise have no such guarantee. Also the contractual commitment (between the entrepreneur and the financier) to repay the loan with interest is not in harmony with the reality. There is no justification for obliging the entrepreneur to pay interest if there is no positive return on the money capital invested. To claim the contrary, as prevalent in the interest-based system, requires that money capital be regarded as essentially of productive value; but this is not the case. Value is a market phenomenon and not an intrinsic property of money capital. Given the uncertainty of prices of the products the total value resulting from the employment of money capital in production may be more than, equal to, or less than its own value. This is true irrespective of who employs the money capital, its owner or someone else to whom it is advanced. The injustice of the interest-based system to th e savers and creditors becomes much more pronounced in an inflationary situation. When the rise in the rate of interest may lag far behind the rise in prices and profits, depositors may actually get a negative return if the rate of interest is lower than the percentage rise in prices. The lending rates of the banks also fail to keep pace with rising prices, leaving businessmen to collect the profits.