Risk-Based Capital Framework: Conventional vs. Takaful Operators

Abstract

Malaysia introduced an RBC framework for its conventional insurance industry in 2009. In 2011, enhancements to the RBC framework were completed. In an effort to improve the overall Takaful regulatory framework, BNM issued new operational and valuation guidelines on 23 September 2010. BNM further issued the draft of risk-based capital (RBC) guidelines for Takaful operators in April 2011 and gathered the industry’s feedback (Dhesi, 2012). The proposed Takaful RBC framework appears to be similar to that imposed for a conventional business. Parallel to its counterpart, Takaful operators are obliged to have at least 130% of supervisory capital-adequacy ratio (CAR). The minimum CAR imposed is formulated so that Takaful operators have sufficient capital in the shareholders’ fund to meet any shortage in Takaful fund. Capital adequacy is a theoretical amount of capital that is required by each insurance company in order to meet payment obligations and support everyday operation without becoming insolvent. The same methodology and assumptions as outlined in the RBC requirements for conventional business have been used to determine each of these capital charges (Dhesi, 2012). However, Conventional insurer and Takaful operators are having different types of risk for their operations (Obaidullah, 1998). Takaful operators also adopt different types of operating models (mudharabah, wakalah and hybrid). The RBC-framework for conventional insurers provides detailed guidelines on the estimation of assets by considering the different types of risks related. Still, the RBC framework for Takaful operators insufficiently addresses the risk that relevant to Takaful operator’s activities. The main point that distinguishes Takaful operators and its counterparts is in terms of the sharing of risk with customers.