"If you owe your bank a hundred pounds, you have a problem. But if you owe a million it has."

(John Maynard Keynes - British Economist and founder of the Keynesian School)

Introduction

Keynes' brilliant statement above can accurately describes one of the most crucial problems of international financing activities, i.e., overconfidence in giving loans to companies from emerging markets, which is highly risked, tends to create problems rather than improvements. Problems not only to the financial institutions involving in such financing activities but also to the debtors, as in the end both of them are facing losses, not profits.

This overconfidence, combined with a lack of supervision from the Indonesian authorities can be considered as one of the main factors of the financial crisis in 1997. In that fateful tragedy, an already huge amount of foreign debts which were borrowed recklessly by Indonesian private companies suddenly turned into an endless pool of debt where Indonesian companies were drowning frantically due to the crisis in Rupiah's value.

Some people blame the speculators for creating that disaster, but those speculators are only a part of many factors that formed the crisis back in 1997. Another crucial factor which is also very important is the management of Indonesian private foreign borrowings. Without proper supervision and good risk management, foreign borrowings might be troublesome to the monetary policy of Indonesia and also the sustainability of business activities. Considering the fact that the amount of Indonesian global debt offering transactions are increasing significantly, it might be worthwhile to see the relevant issues that we may face and the policy that should be taken to prevent or solve them.

Why Choose Foreign Debts? 

There are many reasons for raising foreign debts, but I know one obvious reason and that is the lower interest rate. As you may be aware, there is a big discrepancy of interest rate between the US Fed and Bank Indonesia and therefore, to certain extent, obtaining foreign borrowings is more commercially acceptable to Indonesian companies since they can get a lower interest rate.

Of course, if there is no financial crisis, this formula might work. Unfortunately, when the Rupiah's value fell into the depth of hell in 1997, the disaster is inevitable. By having too many debts in foreign currencies and without having any hedging mechanism, the majority of Indonesian companies fall into bankruptcy when they realize that their debts have increased tremendously in correlation with the fall of Rupiah's rate.

Hiding Behind the Scene: Old Regulations on Foreign Borrowings

It is ironic that many Indonesian private companies were crushed in a crisis caused by unmanageable foreign borrowings while the Indonesian Government has already been dealing with foreign borrowings for a long time. It was in 1972, when the President of Indonesia issued Presidential Decree No. 59/1972 on Foreign Commercial Borrowings ("PD 59"), an archaic regulation which has been almost totally forgotten by everyone though it is still a full binding regulation.

Under PD 59, certain restrictions were imposed upon Indonesian companies, such as:

• in case the borrowings involve the Government's guarantee, state owned companies are restricted to receive foreign borrowings without prior approval from the Minister of Finance (later on, the minister approval will be replaced by the approval of the Coordinating Minister of Economy, as the head of the Foreign Commercial Borrowing Team ("PKLN Team"), and the state owned companies are required to obtain prior approval from the PKLN Team before receiving any foreign debts, regardless of whether the Government acts as a guarantor or not to such foreign debts); and
• private companies must report their foreign borrowings in a periodical basis to the Ministry of Finance and Bank Indonesia.

What was the main reason for issuing this PD 59? The reason, I believe, is quite simple, i.e. to manage the currency risk of those debts by supervising those Indonesian companies. Most Indonesian companies receive their income in Rupiah, but when Indonesian companies receive debts in foreign currencies, they have an obligation to pay those debts in foreign currencies. Due to such discrepancy, there is always a currency risk, a time bomb which eventually will explode, destroying everything.

To cut it short, while the nominal amount of the foreign debts will not change, the real amount may change in correlation with the progress of Rupiah's value. If the Rupiah's rate increase, the companies are lucky, but if not, they will face some serious problems. Imagine if a company has too many debts in foreign denomination and at the same time Rupiah's rate falls drastically. With an increase in the actual amount of the debts and without significant additional income, could the company still afford to pay its debts? I don't think so. And if there are too many companies having the same problem, what would be the result? A financial crisis!

Therefore, in my opinion, foreign borrowings must be supervised, so that the risk can be maintained. Of course there is a question on how such supervision can actually prevent the crisis? Further, how should the Government balances the policy to maintain the flexibility for those private companies in raising foreign debts.

Current Condition: Not Much Improvement

Interestingly, there isn't much improvement since the fateful 1997 crisis. As I've seen during my practice, Indonesian companies are still happy to pursue foreign debts, whether through bilateral or syndicated loan agreements arranged by foreign commercial banks or issuing notes to international investors arranged by investment bankers. Submitting reports to the PKLN Team, the Ministry of Finance and Bank Indonesia for Indonesian private companies or obtaining PKLN approval for state owned companies before getting their foreign debts have become administrative obligations which have no value other than to secure a clean legal opinion from lawyers.

This is indeed a sad news, yet inevitable. Due to the lack of implementing policy, the PKLN Team has forgotten their own task, and I have a solid evidence for this. In one transaction, we were asked to give a presentation to members of the PKLN team on the roles and authorities of the PKLN Team relating to PKLN approval. I must say that this is quite hilarious.

That's why, it does make sense when I heard a rumor that the Government intends to revoke the 1972 and 1991 regulations. Why preserving regulations which don't have any efficacy, regulations which only create administrative problems for private companies and state owned companies when they are trying to raise foreign debts?

True, we cannot maintain ineffective regulations, but in the case of foreign debts, I believe that the Government is missing the main point. Such administrative measures were created to protect the interest of those Indonesian companies! Rather than revoking those regulations, why not improving their implementation? But I guess, the Government may have their own thoughts, and I assume that this is related to the separation of tasks between the Government, as the guardian of Indonesian fiscal policy, and Bank Indonesia, as the guardian of Indonesian monetary policy.

Latest Regulations on Foreign Borrowings

After going through an enduring period, Bank Indonesia issued Bank Indonesia Regulation No. 10/7/PBI/2008 on Foreign Borrowings of Indonesian Non-Bank Companies on 19 February 2008 which was further followed up by an implementing regulation in the form of a circular letter on 22 December 2008. Basically, this regulation requires Indonesian non-bank companies to submit periodical reports (annually or semi annually) concerning their financial viability (this include the submission of a report on their financial ratio and their financial statement) and risk management analysis before they obtain foreign borrowings in any form whatsoever. The regulation also requires these Indonesian non-bank companies to obtain ratings from local or international rating agencies for each debt that they would obtain. Those who are interested to see the form of the report can see it here.

The purpose of this regulation is to ensure that Indonesian companies have sufficient consideration and a proper risk analysis in determining whether they should pursue loans from foreign parties, whether they are banks, other financial institutions, or bonds investors. Bank Indonesia states in this regulation that foreign borrowing is one of the major factors which may affect the Indonesian monetary stability and the sustainability of the Indonesian economic development, and therefore proper supervision is needed.

In my opinion, this regulation is quite balanced. I don't think that it can significantly affect the flexibility of Indonesian private companies in raising foreign debts. On the other hand, the regulation might provide various useful guidelines for the companies in conducting proper analysis before they get those foreign debts. In other words, this regulation is a further advancement to the old 1972 and 1991 regulations which only required submission of simple reports.

The regulation also imposes sanctions in the form of warning letters and announcements to the public (domestic or international). This is a good move from Bank Indonesia and the sanction should be more effective than any other penal sanctions, since reputation is very valuable in the market, and no companies dare to risk their good reputation for unclear benefits. It should be noted though that the sanctions will be effective on 1 January 2010.

I have high hopes on the further implementation of this regulation. Getting many global debt offering and other international financing deals are good for lawyer's business. However, it is also important to ensure that we are not advancing these companies toward doom because of reckless debt policy. Bank Indonesia should be strict when it deals with this reporting obligation to ensure the compliance of the Indonesian companies. After all, these regulations are made to protect their interest in the long term and the regulation can be a good nudge for them.

In Part I of my article, we have discussed two of the major challenges that are being currently faced by the Indonesian Islamic banking industry, the taxation and regulatory issues. In this article, we will discuss the remaining two challenges, i.e the risk management issues and the segmentation and marketing issues.

1. Risk Management Issues

We will start our discussion by asking this question: "Why murabahah financing sits at the top of Islamic banking financing products in Indonesia?" As of June 2009, the murabahah financing which involves a sale and purchase of assets between an Islamic bank and its customers with a deferred payments mechanism plus margin is the queen of all Indonesian Islamic financing products, comprising of approximately 57% of the total Islamic financing products. Meanwhile, the mudharabah financing (revenue sharing financing) and the musyarakah financing (joint venture financing) only comprise 21.6% and 14.5%, respectively, of the total Islamic financing products.

To be honest this is not a shocking result, and as I will further discuss in this article, the above result is none other than a logical consequence of the current structure of the Islamic banking industry risk management which is actually being supported by the current regulations of Bank Indonesia.

1.1 The Problem of Mudharabah and Musyarakah Financing's Risk Management

Most of us know that Islamic banks should be famous for their profit sharing concepts in doing their business, which is reflected in the mudharabah and musyarakah financing products. However, in reality, these products have two critical issues related to the risk management of such financing.

First, these products use revenue sharing mechanism, which means that the Islamic bank will only receive revenues if the actual business of the customer produces revenues. Any losses caused due to business losses of the customer shall also be borne by the Islamic bank, provided that the amount of which shall not exceed the total mudharabah or musyarakah financing.

The above is correct under the Islamic law principle and has been adopted by Bank Indonesia regulation. No one should argue on that. But the problem is quite different for modern financing activities. Most of Islamic banks' source of funds comes from third party funds (as of June 2009, the third party funds comprise 76% of the total liabilities of Islamic banks). These are the funds of the Islamic banks' customers and are not actually owned by the Islamic banks.

From risk management perspective, putting money in a high risk business is unlikely, especially when the banks are mainly using other people's money and they will be responsible to return those funds. We must also remember that banking industry relies heavily on the people's trust. If people are losing their trust on the Islamic banking industry, it is possible for us to predict a financial collapse of major Islamic banks.

Second, the current regulatory regime limits the possibility of Islamic bank to execute the security (jaminan) for mudharabah and musyarakah financing products, and also limits the ability of the Islamic Bank to request for payment of losses. Again, this is in line with the Islamic law principles and no one should further argue on that. But, from risk management perspective, the risk of mudharabah and musyarakah is increasing. Not only that the Islamic banks are liable for possible business losses, they don't have an exit clause which can secure their financing.

What would be the logical consequences of the problems above? Islamic banks will not be using the mudharabah and musyarakah financing products as their main products, rather they will focus on financing products which are more secured for them, in this case, murabahah would be the proper choice.

1.2 Suggested Solutions

Why murabahah financing is widely used? Murabahah financing is flexible enough to be used for certain type of financing, ranging from working capital, investment and consumer finance. It is more secured because after the sale and purchase has been conducted, the customer will be indebted to the Islamic bank and the Islamic bank would be able to secure such financing by the customer's assets and then execute the assets in case the customer fails to pay its financial obligation. From any risk management perspective, it would be best for Islamic banks to focus on this financing product. And we can't blame them for this issue as there is indeed an inherent risk management problem with the mudharabah and musyarakah financing and we must work together to solve this issue.

Now, how can we claim that Islamic banks have a wide array of products where in reality the Islamic banks will focus on murabahah financing products? The solve this issue, we would need to amend the current regulations on Islamic banking products, especially to help the Islamic banks in reducing their risk with certain type of Islamic financing.

My proposed solution would be to make a clear regulation which can eliminate any bad incentives to the customer with respect to the mudharabah and musyarakah financing, i.e preventing them to make bad business decision which will resulting on losses to both sides. How can we achieve this? Some suggested solutions would be: (i) increase the Islamic bank's authority to review and be involved in the business activities of the customer, (ii) penalize the customer for conducting any material business decision without first consulting with the relevant Islamic bank, and (iii) enable the Islamic bank to execute the security for such financing in case the customer does not comply with the requirements stipulated by the relevant Islamic banks in doing their business.

With these solutions, we can expect that the business management of the customer will be handled in a more professional way and the Islamic bank will have an exit clause when they are dealing with bad customers. Further, by encouraging the Islamic banks to be more involved in the customer's business management, it would be easier for the Islamic bank to maintain its risk management and prevent bad business decision of the customer. An age of entrepreneurship may rise in Indonesia, if this can be conducted properly.

2. Segmentation and Marketing Issues

With a total assets representing only 2.64% of the total assets of the Indonesian banking industry (excluding the rural credit banks), the Indonesian Islamic banking industry still has a long way to go before it can dominate the market share in Indonesia. But how can this be happen when most of Indonesian citizens are moslem? The answer might lie on the issues on the Islamic bank segmentation and marketing. Apart from taxation, regulatory and risk management issues which might not be resolved directly by the Islamic banking industry (as government authorities involvement are needed), the segmentation and marketing issues are inherent issues within the core of Islamic bank industry.

From what I see until now, most of the Islamic banks in Indonesia do not have a clear segmentation or marketing policies, especially in getting new customers. This is not due to a cliche reason like the Shari'a bank is not aggressive enough in doing the marketing, etc. The main problem lies in the fact that most Islamic banks are not yet concentrating on getting specific customers and to certain extent are still being trapped with religious symbols and doctrines in doing their marketing activities.
On the segmentation issues, considering the number of Islamic banks' assets, it would be better for Islamic banks to focus on small to mid enterprises unless they have a huge amount of additional capital. And this is actually a potentially good business. Rather than competing with bigger conventional banks who have secured some loyal clients, creating new opportunities with new type of customers might be easier and can show some actual differentiation between Islamic banks and conventional banks in term of doing business activities.

In addition, some proposed plan on my mind for making specific segmentation would be: (i) Islamic banks could focus on micro financing using mudharabah and musyarakah financing products, since given the nature of these products, it would be best to diversify the financing to many parties to avoid high risk of default; (ii) Islamic banks could focus on targeting customers who like to have a secured financing liability, whereas in this case, murabahah financing products with its fixed margin system would be the best option to capture these kind of customers; and (iii) Islamic banks could also focus on assisting small to mid entrepreneurs in doing their business, becoming a "financial manager" for these kind of customers through mudharabah or musyarakah financing products, as this is possible under the current Bank Indonesia regulations.
On marketing issues, I've seen many marketing products in several branch offices of Islamic banks and can conclude that while it is good to tell people that Islamic banking products are the ones that have been blessed by God, it would be better to tell people that Islamic banking products are good and profitable.

I must say that it is ironic if Islamic banks are not focusing on marketing their competitiveness of their products. In term of savings and deposit products, Islamic bank offer a competitive rate of return with conventional commercial banks. Even in term of financing products, contrary to the common opinion that Islamic bank financing is a little bit more costly due to its fixed rate system, the margin rate of murabahah financing is fairly competitive with most of credit financing products and even lower compared to interest rate for consumer credit. I made all of these comparisons using Bank Indonesia's June 2009 Statistics.

To certain extent, I can understand why some of the Islamic banks are not focusing on this kind of marketing. After all, some of them are owned by the same party who own the conventional banks, which of course creates a conflict of interest. Creating a marketing strategy which shows the quality of Islamic banks to the highest degree would not always be acceptable by their colleagues in the conventional banks, thus, these Islamic banks can only focus on getting customers who use religious reasons rather than commercial reasons to become their customer.

In the end, what is truly matter when we are speaking about marketing is how the Islamic bank can provide marketing products that allow people to believe that Islamic banks are professional, accountable and profitable. It should be noted that Islamic banks are profit-seeking institution and should focus on getting those profits, because it is impossible to increase the market share of the Islamic bank if they can't obtain enough funds to expand their business.

For quite a long time, it is very common for us to hear critics saying that the Indonesian Islamic banking industry has failed to capture a bigger market share in Indonesia despite the fact that Indonesia is the biggest moslem country in the world. To certain extent, this might be true.

If we compare the total assets of Islamic banks (based on Bank Indonesia's Islamic Banking Statistic per June 2009, the amount of which is approximately Rp.55 trillion) with the assets of commercial banks (based on Bank Indonesia's General Banking Statistic per June 2009, the amount of which is approximately Rp.2,028 trillion), we will found out that Islamic banks' assets only represent 2.64% of the total assets of Indonesian banking Industry (excluding rural credit banks). True, that if we compare the current data with 2005's data, Islamic banks' assets have increased around 250%, but that is not significant enough if we see the total cumulative assets of the Indonesian banking industry.

Seeing this hard fact, what are actually the main challenges of our Islamic banking industry? What need to be done to surpass these challenges and how? In this article, I will discuss some of the most important challenges that are currently being faced by Indonesian Shari'a banks and some suggested solutions which may be considered in solving those challenges.

2. Major Challenges in Developing the Islamic Banking Industry in Indonesia