Key Points of GFH’s 2014 Strategy
To set the stage, a recap of the key elements of GFHFG’s new
strategic focus:
1. “stable and recurring income, profitability and
cashflow”—while they didn’t use the term “annuity business” that seems an
appropriate characterization
2. reduce its holdings in “land-based business”
(real estate) from 50% to 40% in the midterm and to around 30% in the long term
3. “ensure greater stability from global financial
issues”
For citations for above, see the 1 December posted linked to
above.
In a series of posts to follow, I’ll explain in typical-AA excruciating
detail why I think that KHCB is a poor fit with GFH’s new strategy. Here’s a summary of my main conclusions:
1. Historically KHCB’s earnings have been highly
volatile probably as a result of some of all of the following: the nature of its business (long term fixed
rate lending), underwriting standards, the limited size of its national market
(note KHCB is only 3% or so of the Bahrain bank market by assets), possible
earnings management catching up with management, etc.
2. As a long-term fixed rate lender, KHCB is
exposed to significant “profit (interest) rate risk” which threatens future
earnings because KHCB’s long dated fixed rate portfolio offers less
opportunities for repricing than say a shorter tenor portfolio like that of
Qatar Islamic Bank. As well, if rising
rates squeeze KHCB’s income, it may be forced to pay lower profit rates to
depositors increasing the risk of depositor flight.
Both outcomes are particularly a threat because interest rates for the
US dollar—to which the BHD is pegged—appear poised for more increases.
3. KHCB’s portfolio has weak credit quality metrics
that suggest credit related problems will weigh on future earnings, e.g., consistent
renegotiation of significant amounts of its portfolio; the sudden dramatic increase
in 2015 in loans classified as “past due but not impaired”, particularly in the
90 day plus past due category; and declining loan loss provision coverage.
4. Substantial indirect exposure to real estate—an
interest rate sensitive asset class—through reliance on real estate collateral.
While direct real estate exposure may be under KHCB’s 40% limit
for assets, the indirect exposure through collateral is at 55%. To the extent that loans may have been made
to marginal borrowers based on real estate, the indirect nature of this risk
will become more proximate.
So with all these negatives why did KHCB become a key pillar
of GFH’s new strategy?
“During the year, our sale transaction for Khaleeji Commercial Bank (KHCB) fell through. However, with the revised strategy of evolving as a wider financial group, GFH is now looking to retain its investment in and grow the operations and businesses of KHCB.”
What this seems
to say is that if the sale had gone through KHCB wouldn’t be a pillar. Looks like a third party (the prospective
buyer) played a critical role in developing GFH’s new strategy.
Or in other words “If life
gives you chickpeas, make hummus.”
No comments:
Post a Comment