Connecting the Dots : Islamic Fintech

Posted on December 31, 2017 by Amir Alfatakh

REVOLUTION OR EVOLUTION?

This posting is in the danger of being written too long, but I think it is necessary to close this year with this topic, simply because it looks at the future. The word “Islamic Fintech” has been buzzing for quite some time now and there have been pockets of excitement on what it should mean. Many financial institutions have jumped onto the bandwagon declaring they are also part of this new wave of what a bank could offer.

While all these are still early stages of development, I do notice a lot of effort is built into “digitalisation” and “apps-based application” and “efficiently and convenience” of EXISTING banking processes and relationships. These enhancements are still driven by financial institutions and centred around improving traditional processes for banking services, or short-circuiting the credit processing elements of financing. Although enhancements via technology is an important aspect, these should not be defined as “fintech”. There is an element of fintech in process improvements, but PROCESS IMPROVEMENT itself are not fintech.

DO PEOPLE NEED BANKS?

Traditionally, banks always hold the impression that “People need Banks, one way or another”. It is this understanding that the bank can continue investing into their brick and mortar business model, with customers always coming to them when they need capital, financing funds or products and services. The competition is that who can deliver existing products in the most efficient manner, with technology as the enabler. Money is spent to improve accessibility to the bank’s EXISTING products, services and proposition.

In improving processes, banks just needs to concentrate on all the products and services offered and build the corresponding infrastructure to ensure efficient delivery with technology. It can be “Apps-driven” based on inquiry or transaction-based, with new features attached to existing products. It is just creation of new delivery channels which will deliver existing products to customers faster than before.

But that in my view is NOT what fintech is all about.

IF FINTECH IS NOT PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS THEN WHAT IS IT?

The easiest google/cut/paste definition of Fintech is that “fintech is a new financial industry that applies technology to improve financial activities“ and “FinTech is the new applications, processes, products, or business models in the financial services industry, composed of one or more complementary financial services and provided as an end-to-end process via the Internet”. The key words I believe are:

New Financial Industry
New Application
New Processes
New Products
New Business Model

While “Process Enhancement” can help support the “New Processes” element, but I think it falls short of the idea for fintech i.e to re-think the business model of financial services. The idea of fintech should be this: Understanding what the requirements of the Gen Y customers are and how they work, develop the products and services on platforms that they are most familiar with, and the proposition that the bank can offer on their chosen platform. It is a total re-think of delivering products and propositions to the up-coming Gen Y potential customers.

SHARING OF FINANCIAL WALLET

As much as banks and financial institutions like to believe the financial wallet cannot exist outside the regulated financial system, the evidence is slowly being presented as otherwise. Companies are finding ways to survive, live and thrive outside the banking system with facilities and opportunities in the New Economy, slowly eroding the traditional banks’ share of financial wallet.

Big Data companies have proven that their database is far more powerful (and valuable) than the database an individual bank would have on its existing customers. Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies goes through thousands of transactions within blockchain and is only realised into banks network when actual physical cash is needed. eWallet lets value resides in tech platforms for purchasing and sales of goods and services (more like barter or exchange of goods and services), and up to a certain extent provides microfinancing. Prepaid and loaded value arrangement provides free seed funding and capital for businesses, without the cost of borrowing incurred via banks. Peer to Peer (P2P) arrangement links crowdfund Investors to Entrepreneur without complicated documentation with speed and transparency levels never seen before. Sharing of risks and profits (including potential pay-offs) are now more understood as compared to traditional financing arrangements. Mudharabah, Musyarakah, and Ijarah may now have a place in an economy where equity participation is expected and sought after.

“FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS” ARE JUST A SINGLE ELEMENT IN THE UNIVERSE

Technology can now provide a single-point possibility of all our needs; goods, services, food, shopping, bills payment, money transfers, investments, borrowing, deliveries, medical, transport, social interaction, travel, holidays, education, careers development, information and even branding. Financial services can be integrated into all these elements, now driven via apps. But for this new infrastructure, the various “relationships” are needed to be identified and re-looked and re-engineered. With the proper Shariah compliance consideration.

This “single point” proposition is where tech companies play a crucial part. Rethinking the financial model must happen with the involvement of tech companies due to the advantage of everything being on the internet (internet of things). There are still a lot of limitations to what a bank can do, understandably due to financial regulations. The space of where banks are continuously competing (or evolving) is the “FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS” box above, and maybe payment gateways linked to service providers. But tech-companies? The revolution of technologies move so quickly that regulations will continue to struggle to catch up.

In the diagram above, I attempt to identify some of the areas of traditional banking where fintech can come in and provide a like-for-like solution or even fully replace the proposition by traditional banks. Certainly a lot of the consumer touch-points can be easily replicated in a technology platform, and crowdfunding and crowdsourcing can replace traditional financing and working capital requirements as well. Some services are still embedded into a banking structure (such as Current Accounts or Treasury product propositions) but over time, such products may be linked to fintech and the banks may eventually become ancillary service providers rather than main bank, earning just fees for services provided.

The landscape of what a bank offers will ultimately change in the next few years, when consumers no longer go to banks for financing, services, remittance and settlement of business transactions. As the new generation grows up with tech and becomes financially affluent, their expectation of how a banking experience should be will also dictate the model a bank adopts.

CONNECTING THE DOTS

So where do I see the banking industry in the next 5 years? Personally, I think a “price-comparison platform” will emerge, as seen nowadays in the travel/hotel/tourism industry. Information from all the financial service providers are flowed into a single platform, and consumers are able to immediately compare products, services and prices on a single platform and choose their solutions. Instead of customers subscribing to multiple banks offering different products and services (at different pricing), they only need to subscribe to a single platform where all information on the products are available to select. This is where the promise of fintech can thrive; accuracy of information, convenience of access, and speed of transaction.

It is a matter of time the various industries converge. We may think regulatory pressure will halt some of the progress but mostly it have been reactive regulations. And the challenge is that these developments are driven by tech companies which has no loyalties to banking regulations as their scope of business cuts across various industries. It will be a period of “non-regulated” until the market starts to recognise the need to regulate and managing the risks. A regulatory sandbox will be usefull, but if the “New Economy” moves faster than the speed where regulations are being formalised, there will be a lot of speculative and arbitrage opportunities for the market to gain.

This also means the New Economy brings new risks that the consumers are not aware off. While the banks have been fine-tuning its risks that it takes over the past half-century or so, the fintech companies may not see the elements of risks other than technology risks or systemic risks. Almost all the risks faced by banks are also prevalent in fintech companies or non-banks, plus the specific risks by fintech companies. They might be great at integration of technology, but banks are still masters when it comes to understanding financial risks.

WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE?

As I mentioned, banks understand risks better than a tech company. A tech company understand speed, efficiency and channels better than any banks can have. At the moment, banks are developing “fintech” on their own which is mostly a process improvement project. Tech companies are developing “banking services” on their own as well, where it linked investor’s money and economic entrepreneurs via technology. The question is really, “why not a bank consume or enter into a partnership with tech companies to provide a solution beyond traditional banking?” We have started to see this trend where banks attempt to purchase outright a tech company and use the company as an incubator for new products and services. It should look into having a different operating structure which encourages new ideas, innovation, internet-based solutions, as well as delivering to a larger segment of consumers (including the Unbanked segment).

The end-result might not look like what we recognise as banks we see today. This could be a separate line of business for banks, where the element of technology integrated into the wider economy is more dominant than its traditional banking products and services. You could have Bank A offering the traditional products and services, and Bank A-Tech offering fintech solutions to a new generation. The same bank catering to 2 business lines, employing different delivery channels.

But breaking away from such traditional infrastructure may take time, and the greatest fear is that the market cannot wait. Fintech companies may be able to offer similar proposition in half the time required, and this will not motivate fintech companies to join-venture with a financial institution. In an environment where new opportunities arise at the blink of an eye and regulations have yet to be formalised, the temptation to go on its own will drive innovation by the fintech companies, leaving behind banks. Fintech companies have the capability to look at consumer needs and develop the solutions from the bottom, and flow the linkages to the top. Connect the dots where the solutions provider are linked together in a platform.

Will fintech companies be the next driver in providing financial solution? I know my answer to that question. It is perhaps just a matter of time where future banking is done outside of a bank. Perhaps the model of banking needs to be re-imagined.

Wishing all my readers a Happy New Year in 2018. I appreciate the support I have received so far. But the new world beckons and hopefully we can do enough to ensure the continuation of the banking industry. I hope Islamic Banking can play a bigger role in taking the industry into this exciting online generation.

The Tawarruq Dilemma

Posted on December 25, 2017 by Amir Alfatakh

Islamic Banking in Malaysia is fast reaching a crossroad. While Islamic Banking continues to offer like-to-like conventional structures, the requirements by Shariah Committees and Policy Documents by Bank Negara Malaysia continues to challenge the way Islamic Banks implement and operationalise the products within a viable banking structure. Islamic Banks are becoming mindful of the need to comply fully to each policy requirements.

It is precisely this fear of being “non-compliant” to these requirements that pushes many Islamic Banks to develop the Tawarruq-based products into its most efficient form. As I have written earlier in Disruption : Islamic Contracts where I felt the Tawarruq arrangements has become the “go to” structure that Islamic Banks can easily comply with, the notion that other contracts such as Musyarakah or Ijarah or Mudharabah may now be left behind in its development due to perceived complexities. Or in some cases, difficulty to comply due to the existing banking set-up, especially in matters of risks, capital and operational processes which is intrinsically based on conventional banking infrastructure.

BUT CAN TAWARRUQ ALWAYS BE THE ANSWER?

It is generally accepted that a lot of processes in the Tawarruq arrangement can be complied with. There were strong operational support and infrastructure both internal and external, such as the London Metal Exchange (LME) and Bursa Suq Al Sila which has an efficient commodity platform specifically designed to support Tawarruq with or without commodity brokers, to the choice structure that bridges the middle-east players to most of the rest of the Islamic Banking geographies. But that is by no means that Tawarruq is a perfect solution for Banks.

Despite Tawarruq is now greatly used over the last decade or so, there are still contention points that remains amongst financial practitioners and Shariah scholars. Most scholars want to have the view that Tawarruq should be the “contract of last-resort” but what we see now are quite the opposite. It is the preferred choice being used not just for Working Capital requirements, but now also for Asset Financing, Mortgages, Trade Financing, Fixed Deposits, Structured Investments, and even Savings Account. Whenever an Islamic Bank hits a roadblock with a particular product being developed or requiring compliance to the latest rules, the tendency is always to consider Tawarruq as the solution.

If this is the approach, how much do we really need other Islamic contracts which only addresses a single problem or requirement? Shouldn’t we develop Tawarruq as far as it can take us and make other contracts as “supporting” contract to cater for specific nuances?

THE UNANSWERED QUESTIONS ON TAWARRUQ

Each year when Bank Negara Malaysia audit comes around, there will always be new compliance points to be proven and tested. Even at the level of understanding and interpreting the Policy Documents into processes and banking operations. Each Bank interprets the rules differently, and each banking set-up have different operational capabilities which more often than not, requires exceptional Shariah indulgence. So, the questions will remain unanswered whenever dispensation is obtained.

Many argue that the main issue of Tawarruq is actually the “intention” of the contract itself, and that intention is not to “trade in commodities” but to create debt via a trading transaction. This has been debated at length for many years in all types of forum, but we concede on some of the arguments by virtue of there being no other viable solution to cater for certain banking requirements. Islamic Banks, and its scholars, had to choose either:

Allowing for the Tawarruq arrangement with strict adherence to requirements until a solution arrives, or
Disallowing the Tawarruq arrangement which may result in customers being impaired in their Islamic business, which may result in the customer reverting to a conventional banking solution.

Is there a case of choosing the lesser of two evils?

Nonetheless, I won’t discourse what have been extensively discussed, but instead look at the operational issues of Tawarruq arrangements that I pick up going through the Tawarruq Policy Document. Among them that are still being debated in different forums are:

The issue of Commodity Delivery – To demonstrate that the Tawarruq being practised by the Bank is real, the test of delivery of Commodity is a key qualifying factor. The Bank must have in place a mechanism that allows the customer an option to take delivery of the commodity whenever the customer calls for it, bearing in mind that may have not been the intention in the first place i.e. taking delivery of commodities. How a Bank prove this to Shariah Committee and regulators are crucial to demonstrate “real transaction” and paper transactions.
The issue of Price Fluctuation – Depending on commodities, its price tend to fluctuate periodically, because these are actual live commodities being traded. Because of this, Banks have not been able to be precise in its documentation or price disclosures. Whatever price per commodity unit at 10am, it might change at 2pm, so how do you lock-in a specific price when the buy and sell of the commodity was not concluded immediately? The fact that Bursa Suq Al Sila states in its guidance notes that an Islamic Bank could not hold the commodities for more than 2 hours implies the issue of price fluctuation is a valid concern for Shariah Committees.
The issue of Discrepancies of Terms – Because the Murabahah transaction in the Tawarruq arrangement is the most crucial contract, Scholars always insist on the details of the transaction to be as precise as possible to ensure what was offered was eventually rightly accepted. For example in a Personal Financing structure, the customer makes a credit application according to certain terms such as financing amount, or financing tenure, but what eventually gets approved might be a lesser amount or shorter tenure, which means differences in the initial “Agency” instruction to transact the commodity. Scholars question how do Banks re-engage customers with such “counter-offer” for their acceptance? At which point after the credit approval?
The issue of Delay in Transactions – Some banks are more efficient than others. Some banks are able to conduct commodity trading on the same day while others can only do it in the next day after the day’s batch run. End of day batch runs are what conventional banking live by, and there is no motivation to conclude and consolidate all transaction in real-time; there is no requirements to do so. Batch runs allows for more systematic consolidation of records. But that becomes an issue for Islamic banks running next to a conventional banking proposition. So if an Islamic bank is limited to only end of day batch run to consolidate its records, it means the end of week transactions requirements will only be fulfilled on the next working day (across the weekend). This is a delay in the conclusion of the initial instruction given by customer to conduct Murabahah which may impact specific terms including price of commodity and its availability. There is also the danger of missing out delayed transactions as those instructions are not “current” anymore. There is a provision in the Policy Documents that “delay” in transaction should not be more than 2 days (T+2), but there are also periods where the off-days are more than that due to public holidays and other disruptions.
The issue of Qard in Tawarruq – An extension of the above scenario where Commodity transactions are delayed, the next question will be “what is the status of the funds when no transaction is done?” Is it a Qard (Loan) contract until the transaction is fulfilled, or is it an Amanah (Trust) arrangement? In either case, for the scenario of Tawarruq Deposits, how do you accrue the profit for both contracts which forbids “interest” or “returns“? Profit is only realised once the Murabahah (trade) takes place. Without the trade being transacted, profit accruals can only be justified by arguing that Islamic banks should not penalise customers who, in this case, has done nothing wrong. Dispensation is always given for the reason of fairness. And this “Incidental Qard” issue has also been discussed at the Shariah Advisory Council of Bank Negara Malaysia, where the fatwa on Incidental Qard and its conditions were issued. But the fact that it was discussed, indicated that this issue is not as easily brushed aside as one like to think.
The issue of Agency and Dual Agency – There are still some banks that feels the Dual Agency structure contributes greatly to the notion of “arranged” Tawarruq and thus stays away from it. The Dual Agency structure is where the customer appoints the Bank as both the Buying Agent and Selling Agent. This gives the Bank the full right to conduct trading without any Customer intervention (given mandate), which makes the “ability or option to take delivery of commodity” redundant or unnecessary requirement. It effectively removes the proof of Murabahah i.e. deliverability of the Commodity.
The issue of Physical Commodity – One of the main contention is the ability to ascertain the availability of Commodity. While on paper it can be evidenced but nonetheless the challenge is to ensure the Commodity is identifiable and deliverable according to quantity. Efforts have been made to split into smaller denominations whenever needed, and commodities like Crude Palm Oil (CPO) is easier to be allocated. But there is always suspicion whether this is superficial where proof of otherwise is actually much more difficult to obtain. Where is the certainty that the assets being traded are the right physical ones?

THE REAL QUESTION IS WHETHER THE ABOVE CAN REALLY BE RESOLVED

So is there any other alternatives to Tawarruq? The above questions have so far not been answered satisfactorily and scholars while do not prohibit its usage, still frown on how much Tawarruq has impacted everyday banking life. It is truly a “love/hate relationship,

I believe there is such “replacement” contract that can address most, if not all, of the above concerns. But it needed to be proofed and challenged and at the end of the day, we question such necessity and thus the rising dilemma to replace it after all the work done. Tawarruq has really taken root with so much invested in perfecting the structure, and expertise in its documents and mechanism. It solves a lot of problems, yes. But will Tawarruq be the end of innovation for Islamic Banking?

I like to think there must life beyond Tawarruq. It just needed courage to acknowledge the big task required for such massive structural changes in replacing Tawarruq. Such replacement must not just be an equal substitute but also addresses the Shariah concerns. That is the ultimate test of any Islamic Banking contract; the reason for being.

Report : Islamic Finance Development Report 2017

Posted on December 16, 2017 by Amir Alfatakh

Click on picture to go to report

Information on Islamic Banking and Finance performance has always been an interest of many practitioners, myself included. Yearly we scour the best looking and informative reports on the internet that is full of data on the industry, especially when it covers the global markets as well. Sometimes we find an average one, but nowadays there seemed to be an abundance of available reports. Some have “good” contents, but when I come across “great” one, I am tempted to put it on my site. For future reference, off course!

What we always love to find out is the performance of the Islamic Banking industry locally and globally, as it will provide reliable data to management on the latest trends that contributes to the bottom line. And presented in simple and clear infographics will only ensure some of the slides will be “cut and pasted” for speaker presentations, being quoted in many sessions. This reports provide all those opportunities.

More interestingly, this report provides insights on what has been going on in the world. For example, items such as Value Based Intermediation (VBI) espoused by BNM was also mentioned. There is talk about Islamic Fintech, Awqaf Funds and other local going-ons, including CSR initiatives. I would say this report covers many new areas of interest in Islamic Banking and Finance.

It also has a four-slide presentation on the most recent dispute on Sukuk involving Dana Gas. This was a real concern by many many parties over an extendable period of time. Nonetheless, this report make a good job summarising the key issues about the Dana Gas case, until its resolution. What a good write up for layman.

I hope these kind folks don’t mind me posting their report on my site. As mentioned, this website was maintained aimed to be a repository of the many discussions on old and new issues. If you want to download the report yourself, click REPORT : ISLAMIC FINANCE DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2017. Also find other reports and this report in the Knowledge Centre.

Happy Reading

Sustainable Vs Halal Practices

Posted on December 13, 2017 by Amir Alfatakh

Today I had the privilege of attending the Sustainable Development Goals Forum at Sasana Kijang, and it is interesting to have a different perspective to the idea of Islamic Banking. I have always had the impression that Islamic Banking is the means of reaching the Maqasid of Shariah (objectives of Shariah). However, listening to the forum, I realise Islamic Banking is probably only the START of the journey to the Maqasid of Shariah.

THE MAQASID OF SHARIAH

In general, the development of Usul Fiqh is to ensure the 5 objectives of Shariah are met, and the legal framework revolves around these understanding. To remind ourselves what those are:

Protection of Religion
Protection of Life
Protection of Intellect
Protection of Lineage
Protection of Property

In the same breath, it is envisioned that Islamic Banking is also designed to help achieve the Maqasid of Shariah. But if you really look into it, banking per se has been so far developed to mainly fulfil the 5th objective which is “Protection of Property“. It deals mainly on the Muamalat element (economic relationships) of humans in daily life. Thus so far, most of the objective elements in a banking perspective revolves around:

Are the funds deployed by bank used to finance Shariah compliant activities?
Are the transactions valid and follows the minimum tenets of the contract?
Are the processes following minimum Shariah requirements that avoid Riba (usury), Gharar (uncertainty) or Maisir (Gambling) elements?
Are the features of the products and services resulting in justice and fairness to the customers?
Are the products and services deliberated and assessed by the Shariah Committee to be in compliant to Shariah law and its veritable sources?

A lot of banking activities aims to comply with “Shariah requirements”. However, this is a snapshot of just one portion of the whole Islamic value chain, which simply looks at only the part where the bank’s processes and practices satisfy the minimum requirements to ensure transaction validity. This makes the process “Halal”. But is being “Halal” enough?

WHY IS HALAL NOT ENOUGH

In a Muslim’s daily life, many aspect revolves around “Halal”. In particular we prefer Halal food, which means the food is prepared the right way according to Muslim traditions, which excludes liquor, un-slaughtered animal meat, and pork or lard. In the banking proposition, these are Riba, Gharar, Maisir and unjust practices. But these are still within the control of the banking institutions. Avoiding these, surely Islamic Banking practice equals Shariah compliance.

But is merely being Shariah compliant sufficient to meet the objectives of Shariah?

Halal, in my view, only corresponds to the minimum requirements in meeting Maqasid of Shariah. Stopping at “meeting Shariah compliance in terms of products, services, and operational requirements” does not necessarily satisfy Shariah in a larger worldview.

One of the reasons of why I posted the picture of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) by the UN is that business activities should also take into consideration the environment in which it operates. The idea is to practice the business in a way that it provides a “Social Impact” to the community in particular and even for the country. Using propositions such as SDG provides a starting point beyond just “Halal”. It talks about taking responsibilities and accountabilities to the local community to ensure that the product on offer are not just “Halal” but also helps the community with meaningful improvements.

This is where “Sustainability” suddenly moved to the forefront.

SUSTAINABILITY : BEYOND HALAL

The idea is not new. It has gone through various incarnations, and the more popular terms are Ethical Banking, or Sustainable Banking. These ideas however, are still very much internal arrangements, but rarely a view of the whole value chain. The idea is that not just being halal, but also being clean, fair, compassionate, helpful, and humane. This is where the objectives of Shariah can be met.

A fair illustration of the above (which I picked up at the forum and it is a good one) is the conditions of rearing chickens. You have a chicken farm to supply chicken to your area. You supply the chicken which have been halal slaughtered and as far as your are concerned, you have met the “Halal” requirement ie slaughter in the traditions of Islam.

But how about the value chain of chicken rearing? Yes, the minimum requirement is met i.e. halal slaughter, but the end-to-end practices in this single transaction have not been looked at. Will it meet the standard that will be imposed by Shariah if they are made aware of it? Let’s look at the value chain of chicken rearing.

Chicken eggs incubated for chicks or small chicks bulk purchased from suppliers
Chicken are reared in cramped caged farms, or allowed to run free-range within the compound
Chicken are fed for 46 days to maturity with natural feed, or processed pellets which may/may not have antibiotics in them
Upon mature age, chicken are taken to be slaughtered under the Islamic traditions

Therefore, the Halal portion of the whole process is only No (4) which is the slaughter. Items (2) and (3) have the potential of making the value chain “Un-Islamic”. The question will be :

If the chickens are kept in cramp places with diseases, is this considered acceptable under the objectives of Shariah?
If the chickens are fed continuously with pellets containing growth hormones and antibiotics, is it ethical in the eyes of Shariah?

This is where Sustainability comes into the picture. There is a word that can aptly fit into this : “Thoiyyib” which means “pure”. A bank should look at the whole value chain of things to then decide whether a business activities is only “Halal” or “Halal + Thoiyyib”. This should be the new standards, when we think about achieving the objectives. There are many propositions on Sustainable practice which banks and customers can take cue from and develop further. Incentives to companies that adopt sustainable practices should be given, as sustainable practices are meant to be more humane, fair, just and gives bigger social impact than just being Halal. It is a skeleton than supports the whole community in sustainable activities. This includes concepts such as environmental friendly, non-polluting disposal, good waste management, people inclusion to jobs and equal opportunities, providing safety and security to communities, involvement in clean / renewable energies, and also providing education and equality in pay and relationships.

THE CHALLENGE

In my view, achieving “Sustainability” is a bigger challenge to overcome. But the rewards can potentially be bigger, as all institutions in the value chain become less “profit driven”. There are too many elements to choose from, and it is expected to take years to achieve. There will be cost to implement this but there is a need to rely on the well-being of the overall community for you to potentially profit. Choosing sustainability suggest choosing positivity, and continuity.

These concepts are also covered under the Value Based Intermediation (VBI) initiative that is promoted by BNM. Click link to see the Strategy Paper for VBI.

Making the jump from Halal to Thoiyyib takes political will and commitment as well as collaboration with all parties in the value chain. Some sacrifices are needed as there will probably be some costs to the processes. However, with clear objectives to be met, being Halal cannot be the end-game.

“Halal” should now just be minimum requirements, but can we be bold enough to take the next leap to take banking beyond Halal?

Islamic Bankers Resource Centre

Discussions on Islamic Banking

Monthly Archives: December 2017

Connecting the Dots : Islamic Fintech

The Tawarruq Dilemma

Sustainable Vs Halal Practices