Ijarah Sukuk for a Six-Month Liquidity Need
A Sharia-compliant equity fund has 12% cash and a mandate limiting non-equity investments to 15% of net assets. The manager is offered 80 billion IRR of an 18-month Ijarah sukuk with a 20% annual profit rate, secured on a building leased to a municipal authority. The sukuk is unrated and has a thin secondary market; the current bid is 96.5 per 100 face value. The fund needs the cash back in six months to meet redemptions. A bank offers a 22% annual deposit, but the fund's mandate prohibits interest-bearing deposits. The issuer's lease payments depend on municipal budget approval, which is delayed. The fund's current non-equity exposure is 9% of net assets. What should the manager analyze before investing, and what recommendation follows?
1. Assess whether the sukuk is eligible under the mandate and Sharia requirements.
Read the worked answer
Eligibility has three layers. First, Sharia structure: an Ijarah sukuk must be backed by a genuine ownership interest in a tangible asset or usufruct, and the lease must be valid. If the building is not delivered, the lease is not operative, or the rental is effectively a guarantee of principal plus interest, the structure may not be a true Ijarah. The manager should obtain the sukuk documentation, the asset title, the lease contract, and the Sharia advisor's opinion. Second, mandate limits: current non-equity exposure is 9% of net assets, and the mandate cap is 15%. The manager must calculate whether 80 billion IRR would push the fund above 15%; if the fund's net assets are not large enough, the full amount cannot be bought. Third, credit and liquidity: the sukuk is unrated, the lease depends on municipal budget approval, and the secondary market is thin. Those are not automatic prohibitions, but they require explicit analysis and possibly a lower position size. The manager should not treat the 20% profit rate as a risk-free substitute for the prohibited bank deposit.
2. Calculate the approximate six-month holding-period return if bought at 96.5 and sold at 98, and compare it with the bank deposit.
Read the worked answer
Assume the 20% annual profit rate is paid on face value and six months of profit is 10 per 100 face value. If the fund buys at 96.5 and sells after six months at 98, it receives 10 of profit plus a price gain of 1.5, for a total of 11.5 per 96.5 invested. The six-month return is 11.5 / 96.5 ≈ 11.92%, or about 23.8% annualized simple. The 22% bank deposit would return about 11% over six months, so the sukuk looks slightly better on this scenario. But the result is sensitive to the exit price. If the fund can only sell at 96.5, the return is 10 / 96.5 ≈ 10.36%, below the deposit. If held to maturity, the total return would be roughly (100 + 30 − 96.5) / 96.5 ≈ 34.7% over 18 months, about 23.1% annualized simple, but that does not solve the six-month liquidity need. The comparison should be risk-adjusted, not just yield-based.
3. What recommendation should the manager make to the investment committee?
Read the worked answer
The manager should recommend against investing the full 80 billion IRR. The fund's six-month cash need conflicts with an 18-month maturity and a thin secondary market; a forced sale could occur at a discount. The municipal budget delay is a real credit event risk, and the sukuk is unrated. If the fund still wants exposure, it should size the position so that non-equity exposure stays comfortably below 15%, obtain the Sharia and legal documentation, stress-test a sale at 95 or 96, and secure a liquidity buffer outside the sukuk. A shorter-dated, rated sukuk or a more liquid Sharia-compliant money-market instrument would better match the redemption horizon. The committee should also document why the bank deposit was rejected: the mandate prohibition is decisive, but it does not make every sukuk suitable. The final decision should record the liquidity mismatch, the credit dependency on the municipal budget, and the exit-price assumption.